The Hartley Institution and Hartley College, 1862-1902

The University of Southampton wasn’t always the Russell Group Higher Education Institution we know today. It was founded back in 1862 as the Hartley Institution. Due to money shortages and somewhat of an identity crisis, it didn’t start operating until September 1863, nearly a whole year later. And what exactly was it offering? The library and reading room were open to members from 10am to 9pm on weekdays, and the museum from 11am-4pm. The latter was also open free to the general public on three week days and at a charge of 6d on the other days.

Outside view of the Hartley Institution [MS1/7/291/22/1/3]

A course of public lectures was arranged plus some evening classes in chemistry and French. The principal, Francis Bond, taught the chemistry himself, and M. Louis de Briffont was engaged as a part-time teacher for French. The Institution initially had 531 members; this quickly rose to 694. The evening classes, however, were not successful and the public lectures failed to pay their way. Hartley was competing against both the Athenaeum and the Polytechnic Institute which offered lighter lectures and more popular music at a cheaper price. In addition, by 1865 the library still only had 5,000 volumes.

It was clear it was essential to improve the financial situation, but what was to be done? Fortuitously, a significant opportunity came the way of the Institution respecting daytime teaching classes. In India, at this time, the Government was developing the communications network and training was required for young Englishmen as engineers and telegraphists in the Indian Public Works Department. Four years earlier, the Hartley had secured recognition as an approved establishment for instruction in this area and so was perfectly positioned to seize the opportunity. In 1867, the School of Art was taken under the Institution’s wing to save it from extinction; this action had huge significance, as we shall soon discover.

Hartley Institution, Scheme for the management of the Hartley Institution, 1863 [ref: Univ. Coll LF 781.2]

At last we have some progress! Albeit not in the direction originally resolved, as it was the college side which was developing relatively rapidly rather than the cultural centre. The day classes throve: in 1868 there were six students, all telegraphists; this had risen to 17 before the end of the year. And by 1870, there were 70 students, most, but not all, engineers or telegraphists. The Institution received excellent examination results and the staff was expanded to several full time appointments. The day time courses were split into two departments: Science (mainly engineering) and General Literature, in addition to the Department (formerly School) of Art.

Building work was undertaken including a new premises for the School of Art, 3 classrooms, a new museum and art gallery. The old museum was converted to expand the library. The interior decorating, uncompleted in 1862 due to lack of funds, was finally completed in 1871. The expansion could be viewed as piecemeal and shortsighted, and it was criticised as such at the time. But what went unrecognised by the critics was the degree to which Hartley Council was obliged to live in this hand to mouth: the finances permitted nothing else.

Entrance hall of the Hartley Institution [MS1/7/291/22/1/10]

By 1871, the Institution looked to be in a promising position. If you scratched the surface, however, it became apparent it was neither secure financially nor in receipt of public support. Sadly the early successes were short-lived and, as we move into a new decade, problems developed. The number of subscribing members declined; the public lectures got smaller and were stopped in 1871. That same year, a college was built near Winchester to provide technical training for the Indian Public Works service. Engineers and telegraphists formed the core of Hartley’s students and now the Institution had a significant competitor for their recruitment.

A further issue was public support, or more accurately, lack of. The old argument – “college” versus “institution” – resurfaced. Members of the Town Council and other leading citizens felt the main focus of the Institution should be on the library and reading room and most wanted this provision freely available to the townspeople in general. They thought this could be achieved by ceasing spending on new buildings and suspending the classes. In 1869 more than 500 people signed a memorial asking for a free reading and newsroom. One of the key bugbears of the Institution party was that many of the day students came from outside Southampton. Not only this, but they had a reputation for rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour. Having no common room, they congregated in the library and reading room before and after lectures. Commentators describe how they:

Burst unceremoniously into the room like an incursion the barbarians of old-some whistling, others humming, singing, or strumming on the tables, all talking, and knocking their sticks, hats and umbrellas about, so as to make a miniature Babel.

Whiled away the time in indolently lounging about the reading room, lolling on the table with their feet resting on the chairs, and by loud talking and laughter.

Temple Patterson, University of Southampton, p. 43

Relations with the School of Art had been simmering for some time. They came to a head in 1872. The Art master Baker still regarded himself as the head of an independent institution, which happened to be housed under the same roof. Baker and the Principal, Francis Bond, fell out: there was a bitter quarrel between the two men, to the discredit of all involved. The Charity Commissioners were called in to hold an enquiry into the past management and to discover an efficient and harmonious way forward. Hartley’s governing body was replaced with a new Council with full control over the Institution, which, after failing to resolve matters with Baker, dismissed him. The issue was finally settled but at what cost? The Institution’s reputation was in tatters, the influx of “outside” students dried up and the day classes were a shadow of their former selves. Bond resigned in April 1873.

Hartley Institution, The Hartley Institution and its proposed extension as a local university college [Rare Books Univ. Coll LF 782.2]

As we move into the mid-1870s, the number of day students dwindled. As did the number of subscribing members: since the library, reading room and museum had been made free to the general public, the advantages and attractions of subscription were much reduced. Several other members of staff left and the new principal, Blackader, was not happy in his post.

By 1875, however, affairs if not successful, were at least settled. The balance of emphasis had shifted slightly from teaching to the institutional side; expenditure on library increased and the book stock was extended. Efforts were made to improve the museum. With a rise in evening students from 1875 onwards and public lectures again attempted in 1878, the Institution found itself in a much improved financial situation. Feelings of suspicion and hostility still existed in the town but the tide of public opinion was changing.

Prospectus for the Hartley Institution, 1878 [Ref MS1/1/31/9]

Those few students whose homes were at a distance from Southampton were usually taken as boarders by members of staff. One of these, in fact perhaps our most distinguished Old Hartleian, was F.W.Lanchester the mathematician and engineer who worked in automotive engineering and aerodynamics.

In the country generally at this time, there was a growing desire for enlarged scientific and technical education and the development of medical schools. The Hartley Institution, on strength of examination results, could claim to be one of the country’s foremost schools of science. It was refused a government grant due to its lack of adequate teaching staff and representative governing body. As we move into the 1890s, there began a drive to develop the institution primarily as a college for higher technical education with the ultimate aim to secure recognition as a university college. Some problems from the late 1860s/early 1870s repeated themselves: namely inadequate capital and badly situated buildings which made it difficult to expand both the facilities and the staff.

The Hall at Hartley College [MS1/7/291/22/1/10]

In May 1893 Sir Philip Magnus carried out a thorough inspection of the Institution. The time had come to choose between the cultural centre and teaching college, he said, and put forward that it was the path of development as a college “meeting the increasing demands for popular and industrial education” which must be chosen. More purely cultural objects need not be entirely lost sight of and the museum and library should be preserved as valuable aids to higher teaching. Magnus suggested the Institution should aim to supplement and advance the education given in secondary schools; advanced day instruction and evening teaching, chiefly technical and commercial. It should aim to make its daytime instructions serve the whole country while its evening classes should be more local in scope.

It was suggested that the institution only employ full time people with adequate salaries; this would secure qualified people who could devote whole working time to teaching. All candidates for the day courses were required to pass an entrance examination. Despite the founder’s intentions the “college idea” had finally triumphed and the Hartley Institution was presently to become Hartley College. In July 1896 six new appointments were made: this core staff claimed to be adequate for the teaching of university subjects plus a complete scheme of technical education.

Hartley College students at a picnic in the New Forest, 1900 [MS1/7/291/22/1/11]

From the beginning of the session of 1896-7 a new era in the history of “the Hartley” began and it changed its name from “Institution” to “College”. The library and museum, although still open to the public, altered their orientation and became adjuncts to academic work. The first BSc was gained in 1896 followed by two more in 1897 and the first BA in 1898.

Up until now, students from outside Southampton had boarded with members of staff. But in the 1899-1900 session the first hall of residence, Bevois Mount House in Lodge Road, was created for the female day training students. A full time Lady Superintendent, Mrs Bland, was appointed.

Lady Superintendent Mrs Bland photographed outside Bevois Mount House [MS1/7/291/22/1]

In November 1901 the University Colleges’ Grants Commission inspected the institution and in the autumn term 1902, the Hartley was officially made a University College. After a somewhat troubled start, the Hartley had found its place and purpose in the world and these new beginnings saw many years of achievement and success. While still worlds apart, the Hartley has started to resemble something like our present day University. As we move into a new millennia, our next post in this series will look at student life at Southampton in the early twentieth century.

Henry Robinson Hartley, the “Hartley bequest” and the opening of the Hartley Institution

Have you ever heard of Henry Robinson Hartley? We think it’s likely that many of you will never have come across this individual. He was, however, rather significant for Southampton: the bequest in his will provided the funds to found the Hartley Institution, an establishment which many years later evolved into the University we know and love today.

Portrait of Henry Robinson Hartley as a child, c. 1780 [MS1/Phot/39/ph3000]

One of Highfield’s most well-used buildings (the Library) was named in his honour. See our 2019 blog post Happy Birthday Henry Robinson Hartley for the full details of his eccentric life.

Three slips of paper with pencil manuscript notes by Henry Robinson Hartley, relating to Noris’s book, 1813, 1817 [MS1/2/6/3]

We pick up our story after Hartley’s death in 1850. His will left upwards of £103,000 – nearly the whole of his estate – to the Corporation of Southampton on condition that it employed:

The interest, dividends and annual proceeds [thereof] in such manner as [might] best promote the study and advancement of the sciences of Natural History, Astronomy, Antiquities, Classical and Oriental Literature in the town, such as by forming a Public Library, Botanic Gardens, Observatory, and collections of objects in connection with the above sciences. [Professor A.Temple Patterson, The University of Southampton (Southampton, 1962)].

The Hartley Institution: bequest to the Corporation of Southampton by H.R.Hartley, deceased

At this time, Southampton had a mid-century population of 35,000 to 40,000. The Borough Council set up the Hartley Bequest Committee. The project was beset by problems from the outset. A significant proportion of the funds had already been swallowed up in a contest over the will but, unfortunately, people over-estimated the revenue that would be available. There was disagreement over Hartley’s real intentions. The suitability of the High Street was disputed with some suggesting that, due to the town’s expansion, a more central and accessible location should be chosen. In this case, Hartley’s wishes were partly carried out: while it was not possible to adapt the existing house, the new institution was to be built on the same site. Just over 50 years later, at the time of the First World War, the University College (as it had become) was required to relocate to the current Highfield site due to space constraints.

The second major debate was over the nature of the institution. There developed two main parties: those who advocated a teaching college and others who favoured an institution or cultural centre. A few characters were particularly vocal in this debate, with the leading voices being Reverend Kell of the “college” party and Joseph Stebbing, for the “institution”. Revd Edmund Kell, the principal figure of the first, was a scholar, champion of liberal and progressive causes, Unitarian minister and archaeologist. Kell argued that Hartley had given precedence to the study of science and literature over the creation of a library or museum and that, since no “scientific public” as Hartley had referred to existed in the town, it must be created: for this a college must be established.

Mr Hartley’s intentions respecting the application of his munificent bequest: a letter by Rev Edmund Kell [MS1/1/31/2]

Joseph Stebbing, a leading businessman and Conservative, was President of the Chamber of Commerce almost continuously from 1851 to 1867. As leader of the “institution” faction his proposal was to create a library, reading room, museum and public lectures which were to be made as widely available as possible.

At a public meeting in July 1858, the motion that the Hartley Bequest Committee of the Town Council should take Stebbing’s proposals as a basis for their scheme, with amendments, was carried without dissent. And so Stebbing and the “institution” party won the day. The Hartley Council was formed to administer the project. One of its first actions was to hold an open competition for the design of the building. You may not be surprised to hear that they were required to choose the cheapest option, which had to be modified further to be achievable.

Design for the Hartley Institution competition: printed report of the Council of the Hartley Institution to the town council [MS1/1/31/5]

Another victim of constrained finances was the staffing budget. A grand total of two people were appointed by the Council in July 1862! A Librarian-cum-Curator who was later given the title of principal. With a salary of £300 a year, without residence, Dr. Francis Bond was a 28 year old Professor of Chemistry and Dean of Faculty in Queen’s College Birmingham as well as Professor of Clinical Medical at Queen’s Hospital. The only other appointment was a porter, Robins, a married man without children: salary of £60 per year with uniform, coal and candles supplied. Later a library assistant-cum-secretary was appointed.

Despite early – and by no means insignificant – challenges, the Hartley Institution had been built, it’s purpose decided and staff appointed. And so we move onto a celebration: the grand opening which was attended by the Prime Minister, no less! And the opening was indeed very grand: no expense was spared on the event and anyone attending would find it hard to believe the financial and other challenges the institution had faced thus far. See our blog post Opening of the Hartley Institution, Wednesday 15 October 1862 for all the details.

The Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston at the opening of the Hartley Institution

Although Lord Palmerston had declared the Institution open, it did not in fact begin to function for nearly a year afterwards. While the shell of the building was ready, it wasn’t equipped for work and the expense of the ceremony caused yet further delays. The bill for the opening came to over £600 which was not paid for for some time and several tradesmen were obliged to sue the corporation before they could get any money.

Report on the organisation and management of the Hartley Institution by Francis T.Bond, November 1862 [Rare books Univ. Collection LF781.4]

The newly appointed Principal, Francis Bond, visited literary and scientific institutions in other UK towns and drew up the report “Organisation and Management of the Hartley Institution”. A small laboratory was fitted up with a grant from the Borough Council. In addition, donations of books for the library and specimens for the museum were received. A whole eleven months passed after the ceremony before the real opening of the Institution on 4 September 1863. Our next University-themed post will explore the early years of the Institution in detail; do join us then.

Norman J.Crisp

Today’s blog focuses on the career of a local writer – Norman J. Crisp, born in Southampton in 1923. Crisp held a number of jobs, including a period in the RAF, before he became a full-time writer. He wrote principally short stories before selling his first script to the BBC in the late 1950s. He wrote extensively for the screen and the stage, contributing to series including Dixon of Dock Green, Dr Finlay’s Casebook, Secret army and Compact, as well as creating, with his collaborator the producer Gerard Glaister, two other series, The brothers and The expert. He won a Writers’ Guild of Great Britain screenwriters award in 1968.

His papers can be found under MS199 at the University of Southampton’s Special Collections.

This collection includes a range of material dating from the mid-1950s up to the early 1990s such as drafts, research notes and scripts for various films including Murder elite as well as television productions for many of the series in which he was involved, The brothers and Dixon of Dock Green amongst them. Crisp was also a published novelist and the collection includes reviews, correspondence and research notes relating to some of his books including Gotland deal, The odd job man and In the long run. Last but not least, the collection also includes papers and correspondence relating to the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (of which Crisp was a committee member), dating from 1959-71.

Title page for an episode of The Brothers written by N. J. Crisp, noting a change in the script [MS199 A807/1/3]

The collection would be of interest not only to those curious about Crisp’s unique career in television and film specifically, but also to those keen to learn about the development of the industry more generally. For example, a letter dated 8 January 1962 [MS199 A807/140/1] and addressed to Crisp from the Joint Editor of Guild News (the Television and Screenwriters Guild’s publication) expresses intrigue (and some scepticism) at the emergence of the new academic study of film-making, whilst questioning the objectives and experience of lecturers in the subject:

[…] Knowing how you feel about the idea that people can be taught to write, I wonder if you think there might be a Guild News article here?[…] Now a number of questions leap to mind. Just what does this course [at London University] cover? Is writing a part of it? And if not, then are students given to understand that writing is an unimportant part of film-making? Who are the people who do the teaching? What experience do they have? […] Do they seriously intend to produce “graduate film-makers” like lawyers and chemists?

Simultaneous with this scepticism on the academicizing of film production and writing, there is nevertheless a strong drive to formalise and protect the economic interests of writers working in the television and film industry, through professional organisation and the promotion of solidarity amongst writers. Crisp’s papers include issues of the Screen Writers Guild Newsletter from the early 1960s, documenting the Guild’s attempts to affiliate with the Trade Unions Congress as well as its negotiations, on behalf of screenwriters, with the BBC and other companies seeking a greater percentage of revenues for writers based on the success of their productions. Circulars from the Writers Guild of Great Britain reveal attempts to co-operate with the Writers Guild of America (WGA) in urging British writers only to accept work from American production companies that had signed appropriate agreements with the WGA, thus preventing them from undercutting American writers by using cheaper British talent and vice versa with American writers.

A 1968 letterhead of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain, featuring their motto ‘Ante omnia verbum’, which translates roughly as ‘The word before all else’ [MS199 A807/145/1]

Agendas produced by the Screenwriter’s Guild (based on Harley Street in London) reveal alarm in 1964 with “the serious decrease in the production of TV drama by the BBC, and instructs the Council to hold immediate joint discussion with Equity and ACTT with a view to making a joint approach to the BBC…”. Attempts were being made to influence broadcasters in terms of the kinds of material they were producing. The notion that the content of television productions should be based, at least in part, on the demands or financial interests of writers rather than the preferences of audiences or ‘the marketplace’ reveal interesting aspects at work in the industry.

As well as exposing the economics and power-relations within the film and television industry, the collection includes correspondence between Crisp and his agents as well as publishers from the early 1950s onwards. This correspondences provides a flavour of what was, or was not, selling well at any given time, thus documenting the evolving preferences of audiences, or at least of the writers, publishers and production companies who vied for their attention. A letter from Crisp’s agent dated 26^th August 1955 informs him: “I am very sorry indeed to return The camel and the eye but unfortunately there is not a very good chance of placing scientific stories and as you will see I have offered it as widely as I could. I am disappointed that I had no good editorial reaction.” This letter does mention, however, that Crisp’s story titled Girls by the gallon had sold for nine guineas. Another letter from the same agent dated 9 September 1955 notes: “I have only tried A twitch in time with three Editors, but alas, Time/Space stories are out of fashion at the moment. With regret…” Perhaps audiences would have been more receptive to scientific stories a few years later, following Sputnik and the beginnings of the Space Race. In fact, Crisp did later write for the BBC science fiction series Doomwatch in the early 1970s.

Crisp’s agents consistently offered their advice on both the preferences of publishers and audiences as well as the style or quality of his writing. As his agents informed him in a letter dated 9 February 1955:

…I expect you know that American editors buying English stories like an English story from an Englishman. There is really little chance of selling a pseudo-American story over there. Many American editors I have met in England have warned me about this… there is more chance of good proportion selling if sufficient time and consideration is given both to the plot and to the style of writing. The best way of finding out what editors are buying is to read the current magazines.

Criticism came not only from editors but directly from his agents too. One story being described as ‘terribly complicated’ [26 March 1955] and another being re-written under a new title altogether after poor feedback. One editor requested that a story involving marital infidelity and bank fraud, which he liked in many ways, should nonetheless be re-written because “it poses a difficult moral problem and is also rather depressing”. [10 January 1955]

Despite some of the negative feedback that Crisp received (he would have been an aspiring writer in his early thirties at this point) he was nevertheless rather gracious in his acceptance of the criticism and often succeeded, eventually, in giving publishers what they wanted. An agent tells him in a letter dated 8 March 1955 “I found The Saturday match particularly attractive and it had also a nice touch of humour. Your real difficulty, as far as selling to the popular magazines goes, is the type of plot. As you perhaps know, stories with a strong romantic interest are the most easily sold and a young love story is often popular.”

The collection would be of interest to any aspiring writer, not merely because of what Crisp had to say about his own creative journey and experiences, but because of his ruminations on the life of the writer. In a speech given by Crisp at an Independent Television luncheon he notes the following: “The writer knows that his script is the foundation on which all else is built, and that knowledge constitutes his essential pride in his craft.” Crisp informs his audience that the occupation of a writer is rather precarious – there is vigorous competition amongst writers and the television industry moves quickly. Within eight years of having his first television play transmitted in 1959 one critic called him ‘the Grand Old Man of television’, even though he was only forty-three years of age at the time. Crisp laments that: “A writer can become a dinosaur before he knows it, and is no longer fitted for survival.”

Crisp also notes that if writers get sick they don’t earn money (at least not back then) and that their talent typically dries up before they die, so they have no earnings on which to depend in their later years. These observations were made to an audience of writers and television executives in the aim of inducing them to support proposals for the introduction of pension contributions from the television companies and other employers, as well as from the writers themselves: “So, gentlemen, what we want to put to you today, is the necessity for, and the justice of, an Industry Pension and Sickness Scheme for writers. For the sake of brevity, a Social Security Scheme.”

Despite his warnings on the precariousness of the writer’s situation and his musings on the life of what others have called the ‘poor impecunious poet’, Crisp was nevertheless very successful for many years after this speech and until his passing in 2005. His papers also include the scripts, drafts, reviews and correspondence for his 1996 play That good night [A1060/18 and A1080/19], which was adapted for the 2017 film of the same name, starring John Hurt in his final film role.

2020 – a year in review

And what a year it has been! It was certainly not as any of us could have envisaged. Yet despite all the disruption during lockdown and a shift in working patterns, Special Collections remained busy with an array of different activities throughout the year.

Exhibitions and events

• 

  Letter signed by “Captain Swing” to the Duke of Wellington threatening assassination, n.d. c.November 1830 [MS61 WP1/1159/114

• 

  Illustration of the attack and defence of the Westgate Hotel, Newport, November 1839 [MS61 WP2/64/74]

• 

  Fascist Hooliganism!: leaflet of the Jewish People’s Council, 1936 [MS60/15/53]

• 

  Image of crowds at the “Battle of Cable Street” in the Illustrated London News,10 October 1936 [Per A]

• 

  Headlines from an article in the Nottingham Gazette, 5 October 1936 [Rare Books Parkes quarto BZ8221.P73]

• 

  Badges of the 35’s: campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS 254 A980/4/1]

• 

  Red t-shirt used for Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry demonstrations featuring Yuri Federov, Josef Mendelevich and Aleksey Muzhenko on the front. Ida Nudel, Anatoly Sharansky and Vladimir Slepak are featured on the back [MS254 A980/5/1/3]

The first Special Collections exhibition of the year We Protest! opened as normal on 17 February, before sadly having to close early the following month as we faced lockdown due to the covid-19 pandemic. Taking the Cato Street conspiracy of 1820 as its starting point, the exhibition also looked at two subsequent nineteenth-century protests, before exploring the work of a number of 20th-century protest and pressure groups – such as the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry – and of student protests. Highlights of this exhibition appeared as blogs in April: covering 19^th-century protests; opposition to fascism in the 1930s; and campaigns for change in the latter part of the 20th century.

With staff working away from site from March onwards and with restrictions in place, the planned autumn exhibition Voyages of Discovery could not be held as a physical event. We used the opportunity instead to create an online exhibition. To mark the 400^th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower in 2020, this exhibition explores voyages of discovery both in terms of travel and exploration of ideas and knowledge.

In early February, the Special Collections, which is the home to the Basque child refugee archive played host to an event where the inaugural Natalia Benjamin essay prize was awarded to Southampton student Josh Burns for his dissertation. Josh’s dissertation used journals produced by the children to evaluate Basque child refugee agency and identity, a topic he discussed further in his guest blog.

February also saw us play host to a year 10 student from Redbridge School in Southampton with an interest in history who wished to do some work experience with us. With a self-confessed fascination in the Second World War, Louie was able to work on documents relating to the Southampton Fifth, the RAF short course run at the University during the war, as well as material from one of our Jewish collections. In his reflections on his time with us, Louie talked about how informative and interesting he found his visit.

Sadly we were unable to host further events and visits for most of the remainder of the year, although we were able to run some research sessions for history students in November and December. We have contributed to the Science and Engineering Fair’s #SOTSEF goes digital with activities in its art meets science strand.

And our handwriting and printing activities also were part of online activities provided by Southampton City during the summer and as part of the Hands-on Humanities event in November.

George Bickham’s The Universal Penman (1741): part of the writing activity provided by Special Collections

Online resources

Staff worked on a range of projects in the lockdown period since March including on a number of online resources.

Special Collections launched a YouTube channel People, Papers and Pasts which hosts a series of films on items within the Archives and Manuscripts and Printed Special Collections and the stories they tell.  

 The first three films of the series are:

(1) an introduction to the Special Collections

(2) a look at the Duke of Wellington and the “scum of the earth” letter of 1813

(3) Gandhi’s note of 2 June 1947

We produced a Flickr online exhibition showcasing images of University sports teams and invited alumni to both identify team members and contribute to the exhibition.

Men‘s football team 1956-7 [MS1/7/291/22/4]

Telling their stories is an online resource relating to the Basque child refugees which forms part of the Special Collections website. Drawing on oral history testimonies and writings of the children, including from the magazines they produced themselves, the resource reflects on their experience in the UK.

And we were involved in Havens East, launched on 12 June, an online exhibition that tells the stories of the Basque child refugees who came to East Anglia to escape the horrors of the Spanish Civil War and using a range of material from Southampton.

Amistad Journal produced by Basque child refugees [MS404 A4171/6/1/1 Folder 1]

For anyone missing visiting exhibitions in the Special Collections Gallery and Level 4 Gallery, there is now the opportunity to revisit past exhibitions at the new Special Collections Gallery site.

Social media and publicity

Special Collections maintained a full social media programme throughout the year, with its weekly blog and a liberal use of twitter.

Chamberlayne Gas Column in Houndwell Park

The subject matter covered in the Special Collections blog has been as wide ranging as usual, reflecting something of breadth and scope of the collections that we hold. We marked Veganuary in January, as well as Chanukah and Christmas fare, based on recipes from the 18th and 19th century, in December. The Duke of Wellington and his archive featured in a number of blogs, from Captain Swing and the riots in Hampshire in the early 19th century, to Wellington at Walmer Castle and the Duke of Wellington as Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire. Other subjects included Gillow furniture, the Bournemouth Poetry Society, Pageant plays, the Titchbourne claimant and the Chamberlayne Gas Column in Southampton.

Photograph of Edwina Ashley showing examples of 1920s jewellery and makeup [MS62 MB3/63] featured in the 1920s women’s fashion blog

We also focused on a number of themes in the social media during the year. At the start of the year were a couple of blogs relating to the 1920s, covering women’s fashion and Southampton in that decade. Then in March, to mark Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day, we featured a series of blogs celebrating women in the Archives: these looked at four quite different subjects: the maritime archaeologist Honor Frost; the philanthropic work of Mary Mee, Lady Palmerston; the Union of Jewish Women collection; and finally Cissi Rosenfelder, who was Honorary Secretary of the Golders Green Beth Hamedrash in 1938-9 and did much work to assist child refugees fleeing from Nazi Europe.

May was local and community history month and the themed blogs for this month started with a look at two of Hampshire’s local champions Thomas Shore and Sir William Cope. The remaining blogs for the month ranged from tourism of country houses to the London Jewish community as reflected from the letter books of the Jewish Board of Guardians and finally art and theatre in Southampton.

The most enduring theme used throughout the year was that of “The stories they tell”, in which we looked at a range of items from the Special Collections and considered the narrative behind the objects as well as what the objects themselves tell us. The blogs in this strand ranged from an article on the model resolution of the Council and Christians and Jews, to pieces about the relic of the Royal George ship, refugees at Atlantic Park, Eastleigh, a letter written before the Battle of Waterloo, mobile ambulance synagogues, Rosicrucian plays, student songs and student life in the 1980s, travel journals for Palestine in the 1920s, the development of football, Raiza Palatnik, the ORT Technical Engineering School in Leeds and Southampton Fifth course.

Mobile synagogue ambulance at the Central Jewish Board Office, Athens, December 1945 [MS 183/374]

Finally, we were delighted to post blogs that reflected both work on the collections as well as in response to features that we had produced. As well as the pieces by Josh Burns and Louie Kesby that have already been mentioned, we hosted an article by Dr Martin Walsh on his work based in part on the archive of the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls, Women and Children (MS173). In June, we had a blog highlighting the stories you had shared with us in response to our own articles. While in October we had the first in what we hope will be a new feature of student societies as guest stars, with a piece by the Athletics and Cross Country Club. The Special Collections holds archive material relating to this society.

There were a number of themes covered in the Twitter account during 2020. We ran the second part of our Highfield in 100 objects tweets until April looking at the development of the University over 100 years. The themes of Monday Memories, Tuesday Trivia, Wednesday Wonder, Thursday Thoughts and Friday Feature or Flora and Fauna provided us with lots of fun as we delved into the collections to find relevant material, as did the Archives A-Z. For August our theme was holidays and journeys, whilst in September onwards we looked at student life. To mark the presidential elections in the US, our November theme was #Electionsincollections and we ended the year with #Winterwarmers A popular theme that will continue into 2021 is that of WellingtonWednesday. If you want to find out more about some of the tweets for 2020, do look at our final blog of the year in which we looked back at the most popular tweets.

Collections

The lockdown was not the most fortuitous time to collect material, due to restrictions on movement and issues about handling and quarantining of material. However, ensuring that archival heritage was not lost remained a pressing concern, pandemic or not, and one such case was that of the archives of the Nuffield Theatre which came to us in September after the theatre closed. Southampton City was sad to see the closure of this, a victim of the pressures on theatres during the current pandemic. The Nuffield Theatre on Highfield campus, which was designed by the architect Basil Spence, was officially opened by Dame Sybil Thorndike in March 1964 and there is material relating to its development amongst the University archives held in the Special Collections.  Due to this University link, we have been delighted to be able to provide a home for the archives of the NST.

Interior of Nuffield Theatre at Highfield campus

We also took custody of additional papers relating to Norwood charity in the summer to ensure that they too had a home for the long term.  Other material that we have acquired in the year, which is much smaller in quantity, has included a fascinating additional selection of papers of Christopher Collins who was private servant to the first Duke of Wellington as well as a separate small collection of items relating to the funeral of the Duke; small collections of university related papers, and papers of an individual involved with the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

And cataloguing work and work creating finding aids progressed throughout the year. Alongside work on new collections that is ongoing, we were also able to achieve significant work on parts of the Wellington Archive and on aspects of the Broadlands Archives during lockdown.

Looking ahead to 2021

With a range of projects and the implementation of a new Archives management system in progress, Special Collections is already looking at a busy year of activity.