The Rise and Fall of the British Portland Cement Research Association, 1918-1925

The British Portland Cement Research Association was a short-lived attempt at industry-wide cooperative research. Peter Jackson, in his discussion of the research activities of the British cement industry, quoted at length from the Introduction to Geoffrey Martin's Chemical Engineering and Thermodynamics applied to the Cement Rotary Kiln, in which Martin bemoaned the "sudden and premature end" of the BPCRA in 1925, and suggested that this contributed to the "steady loss of British trade". As an enormous fan of Geoffrey Martin, Jackson relied excessively on Martin's account of the organisation. It is interesting to examine how successes and failures in the establishment of the organisation led to its inevitable demise. Much of the information derives from the records of the DSIR.

The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR)

From 1914, the First World War concentrated minds in Government on the fact that Britain had come to rely excessively on foreign (and particularly German) equipment for production of strategic goods (and the cement industry was a particularly stark case in point). A Committee of the Privy Council was formed on 28/7/1915, provided with a £1 million lump sum - the so-called "Million Fund". In December 1916, the Government's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was formed, answerable to the Privy Council, with Henry Frank Heath - its instigator - as its first Permanent Secretary. A good account of its formation is given in H T Tizard's obituary of Heath (Note 1). A number of prominent scientists and engineers were recruited to administer the Department. In 1917, the Department initiated a scheme to encourage the formation of industry-specific Research Associations on a matched-funding basis, using the "Million Fund". The cement industry was among the first to apply for funding - they were preceded by the British Photographic Research Association. Other early applicants in 1916 were the Cotton Industry, the Launderers, the Woollen and Worsted Industries and the Scottish Shale Oil industry.

Formation of the British Portland Cement Research Association

The cement industry first became aware that some free money might be available in late 1916. The formation of BPCM in 1911 resulted in a major consolidation of the industry, and the joint management of APCM and BPCM, recognising the usefulness of a "critical-mass" of information available from a large organisation, set up the Joint A&BPCM Research Committee under the chairmanship of John Bazley White (Note 2) in mid-1913. Facilities were provided for large-scale on-site investigations, focusing mainly on the technical problems of the recently developed rotary kiln and ball-milling technologies. The budget was around £1500 per annum. Consultant William Gilbert (Note 3) was recruited to manage the scheme.

On Thursday 19/10/1916, Gilbert tentatively wrote to the Secretary, Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific & Industrial Research, as follows:-

Dear Sir,
Some of the Directors of The Associated & The British Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd., formed a Joint Research Committee about three years ago.
It appears to me that the Committee require a certain amount of advice, both now and from time to time, from an authorative (sic) body as to whether the research work is being conducted on the right lines, and the amount which should be expended annually on it.
Our Research Committee is composed mainly of business men who have a fairly complete knowledge of the Cement Industry.
I should be also glad to know if your Committee make grants in aid of approved Research Work. Will you kindly state your views on the subject.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Yours faithfully,
Wm Gilbert MInstCE
Engineer

Intriguingly, this was written on the headed notepaper of G & T Earle, Wilmington, where Gilbert was presumably based. Certainly, in the early years the main thrust of enthusiasm for research came from the much more dynamic BPCM side.

The Committee replied on 21/10/1916:-

Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, I think the matters you mention could be most conveniently dealt with at a personal interview with the Chairman of the Advisory Council who would, I know, be happy to make an appointment for the purpose. If this suggestion commends itself to the Joint Research Committee, perhaps they will appoint a deputation and suggest one or two alternative dates convenient to themselves for the purpose. Probably London would be the most convenient place for a meeting and in that case I would suggest that the deputation attend here.
Yours faithfully,
W R Davies
Assistant Secretary

A C Davis (Note 4) was Managing Director in charge of the research programme, and he attended the committee offices on Monday 6/11/1916, meeting Sir William McCormick (Note 5) and Dr H F Heath. Advice was no longer on the agenda. Davis was talking money. Heath described the meeting as follows:-

Sir William McCormick and Dr Heath saw Mr A C Davis this morning. Mr Davis explained that the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Cement Manufacturers, which were two firms under the Chairmanship of Lord St David's (Note 6), include 75% of the industry in this country. They had undertaken between them to raise the sum of £5000 three years ago for research which had now been expended. The industry had been hard hit by the war, and the Directors were not prepared to continue the experiment although they were within reach of probably valuable results within a period of some six months. Mr Davis asked for at least the moral support of the Advisory Council with his Directors. The possibility of combining the whole industry in a Research Association was discussed, and he thought it very likely to be possible. It was arranged that he should bring Mr Bazley White, the Chairman of the Committee, to see Sir William McCormick at an early date, and that he should subsequently arrange for some of the members of the Council to meet his Directors.

At this point, an important falsehood has been introduced. Both at the foundation of BPCRA and at its demise, it was stated that companies outside the "Combine" (i.e. APCM and BPCM with associated firms such as Wouldham, Martin Earles and Penarth) comprised only 25% of the national capacity. Whether this was simply corporate self-delusion on the part of the Combine, or a deliberate misrepresentation, the fact is that, from the moment it formed, the Combine's capacity grew much more slowly than that of companies outside it. In 1916, when the BPCRA was first proposed, there were 36 firms outside the combine, holding 30.8% of national capacity. In 1924, when the winding-up of the Association was being discussed, there were still 36 outsiders (5 had ceased and 5 had been newly founded), now holding 38.5% of capacity. The disparity between the latter and the 25% claimed was very significant to the attitude of the minority members to the Association. Be that as it may, the Committee was sufficiently impressed to encourage Davis to proceed. He wrote to McCormick the following day:-

My dear Sir:
I beg to thank you for the courteous and considerate reception given to the writer at his interview yesterday, and as then requested, I am forwarding to you under separate cover, for your private information, the other half-yearly reports issued by myself on behalf of our Research Committee.
As further suggested, I will submit some dates for the Chairman of our Committee to have the advantage of a conversation with you, as well as I hope at some future occasion you will agree to meet our Directors on the subject of Research matters, and in the meantime, I trust you will be able to see your way to outline a proposal which can be discussed at one of our future meetings.
Yours very truly
A C Davis
Managing Director

At a meeting on Monday 13/11/1916 John Bazley White and A C Davis met the Committee and undertook to organise the industry for cooperative research. This process ran in parallel with efforts to form what became the Cement Makers Federation - an organisation primarily concerned with the much more remunerative process of price fixing. The negotiations were long, complicated and highly political. The CMF was finally brought into being in September 1918, and members of the Federation (who constituted at the time about 70% of firms) by and large also signed up for the British Portland Cement Research Association, which was incorporated in November of that year. The head office of the Association was - and remained - 6, Lloyds Avenue, London EC3, the head office of A/BPCM.

The Research Programme

S G S Panisset wrote a description of the Association (Note 7), with a statement of its remit as follows:-

The aim of the association may be briefly summarised as an attempt to cheapen the production and to improve the quality of cement, and the achievement of this aim cannot fail to benefit the consumer while tending to stabilise the British industry. The hearty co-operation of British manufacturers in this enterprise is shown by the fact that more than 90% of their number are members of the association.

However, with the first funds of the new Association in the bank, on Thursday 6/2/1919, William Gilbert, Director of Research, proposed a post-war resumption of research activities with new vigour, at sites not a million miles from home. He issued the following report to the Council of the Association:-

Suggested Immediate Programme for Research

Provided the general programme for research is approved by the Council it is considered that the information still required to enable rotary kilns to be brought to the highest state of efficiency will be best obtained by continuing to test such kilns at the various works belonging to the Portland cement companies. Kilns are available for this purpose ranging from the earliest to the latest types. They differ widely in proportion, and in arrangement of detail.

At Swanscombe, where the research staff are at present located, the following classes of kiln are in use:-
(1) Kilns with extra large clinkering zones and provided with slurry lifters.
(2) Kilns without enlarged clinkering zones, but otherwise similar to (1).
(3) Kilns similar to (2) but without slurry lifters, and without a packed joint at the kiln hood.
Much useful information would be gained by testing each type of kiln for output, coal consumption, air quantities, pressures, and temperatures, and the usual chemical data. A heat balance would be obtained in each case. It is understood that provision will be made for the accurate weighing of the coal in 5 cwt lots.

Draught for Kilns

At the Swanscombe Works there are two groups of eight kilns, each group delivering its waste gases to one chimney 200 feet in height.
When the eight kilns are all at work it is reported that those furthest from the chimney are short of draught.
Conditions also occur in the working of the kilns, depending on the number which are connected to the main flue at any particular time (Note 8).
It is suggested that the inleak of cold air to the flues should be measured, and the frictional resistance of the main flues and chimneys determined. The best method of securing uniform working of the kilns, under all conditions as regards draught, could then be reported upon.

Clinker Rings

Considerable trouble is often experienced owing to the formation of clinker rings in rotary kilns. This may be due to the compulsory use of inferior coal (Note 9), especially when it is only coarsely ground. Experiment is desirable to determine whether the formation of clinker rings may be prevented by:-
(a) the use of more finely ground coal
(b) by varying the volume and pressure of the air blast which injects the powdered coal, in order that the coal ash may fall at different distances along the kiln, instead of in one place as at present.
(c) chemical analysis of coal used (Note 10).

Instruments

When the experiments at the Swanscombe Works are complete, it is suggested that the Research Association should specify and superintend the installation of the permanent scientific instruments which are then decided to be necessary to effectively control the working of the kilns at the works.

W.G.

The immediate impression from this proposal is that it consists of work that ought to be done by the plant without any need for outside intervention other than occasional snippets of advice. It also raises the suspicion that the Association's resources are to be concentrated in and for the benefit of A/BPCM, and even restricted to sites within a few miles of Gravesend. During the first twelve months of research, all site work was concentrated at Swanscombe, Wouldham, Bevans and Johnsons.

Reports on the work done were evidently circulated internally, but not shown to DSIR. However, in the spring of 1920, they had a change of heart, and issued their first generally circulated report. It is worth quoting the introduction of the report in full:

In conformity with the desire of the Council that members should be kept in close touch with the work of the Association as it progresses, it has been decided to issue quarterly reports, which will be circulated to all members who undertake to regard such as strictly private and confidential and for their own information only. The reports are not to be used for advertising or any other purpose.

The present report covers the two quarters to the end of March 1920.

Members are invited to communicate with the Secretary if any explanation or amplification of the report is required and suggestions for investigation of any subject connected with the manufacture or use of Portland cement will be welcomed by the Council.

It is felt that the success of the Association will be to some extent dependent upon the cooperation of individual members (Note 11), and it is hoped that members will take advantage of any results of work contained in the periodical reports or if need be, invite the assistance of the Research Staff for the application of such results as have proved beneficial elsewhere.

By order of the Council
Arthur C. Davis - Chairman
S.G.S. Panisset - Secretary
6 Lloyds Avenue,
EC3

So the work up to 30 September 1919 - which was considerable - went unreported outside A/BPCM.

Thereafter, reports were issued every three months. The contents of these are given elsewhere. Kiln research continued on A/BPCM Thames area plants, although later in the year they did venture out to Shoreham, Vectis and Penarth. In grinding research, a project was initiated, unusually, by an outsider. This was Charles E. Blyth (Note 12) of the small but progressive Charles Nelson & Co., Stockton. The project was to develop a theory of grinding starting from first principles. This formed the basis of all subsequent grinding research, mostly done on laboratory-scale mills.

During 1921, two important events signified a change in direction of the organisation. The first was the purchase and fitting out of Rosherville Court in Gravesend as a research laboratory. This was described in Report No. 6 as follows:

New Premises at Rosherville Court, Gravesend.
The work of fitting up the new premises at Rosherville Court for use as a Research Institution has proceeded rapidly during the last three months and is now about completed. The house has been put into a thorough state of repair, and provided with electric lighting and central hot water heating. Residential quarters have been provided at the top for use of the Research Director, while living quarters have been provided in the basement for a caretaker and his wife, who have been engaged for keeping the premises in order.
The central Laboratory, comprising two large rooms united into one on the first floor, has been completed, while working laboratory benches have been installed in two other rooms for special work. The Laboratories are provided with water, gas, electricity and compressed air piping, so that any ordinary research work can be carried out in them.
The clerical and drawing offices have been completed and have been in use for some time. Arrangements are being made for converting one of the rooms into a library and record room for the cement industry.
Work is still proceeding on fitting the house with an electric cable for power and electric furnace work. The erection of the new 72" × 30" experimental grinding mill is also in progress and should be completed shortly.
Ingress Abbey has now been vacated except for one room in the basement, where experiments on grinding are proceeding until the electrical installation has been completed at Rosherville Court.

The second event was the arrival on 22/5/1921 of Dr Geoffrey Martin as Director of Research.

From this point on, on-site test work largely ceased. Grinding research continued as bench studies. Laboratory research was done on setting times and slurry viscosity - all confined to examination of A/BPCM materials. However, rotary kiln research was confined to presentation of Geoffrey Martin's ill-conceived pseudo-theoretical musings (Note 13), completely devoid of any empirical data.

Perhaps the continual focus on A/BPCM concerns began to arouse comment - in 1924, the kiln research team once again ventured out into the real world, this time - for the first time - outside A/BPCM. The management of Rhoose very reluctantly agreed to allow tests on their Polysius Solo kiln. Clearly this was at the request of APCM and was not requested by the plant. In fact, the distinct impression is given that the test was a (literally) last-minute attempt to show that the Association's work was "cooperative", following developments in the previous year.

Demise of the Association

In May 1923, the operation of the BPCRA had been inspected by DSIR, in advance of the end of the first five-year grant period, which was due to terminate on 30/9/1923. There was a prospect of renewing the grant, which occurred in the case of several of the other Industry Research Associations. However, DSIR decided not to continue financing the BPCRA. The inspection was entirely positive in its assessment of the Association's activities - in fact too positive. It was suggested that the research was sufficiently useful to persuade the members of the Association that they should finance it themselves. This somewhat specious argument was augmented by DSIR's awareness that the cement industry was in the process of setting up another cooperative organisation - the British Portland Cement Association - its main purpose being publicity for cement and concrete. The finance for this, raised by subscription of the members, was £50,000 per year, compared with the £7,550 per year that they were spending on research. DSIR concluded that the cement companies were not so very hard up.

To maintain research at the current level, BPCRA members would therefore have to double their subscriptions. When announced to the Association, this had a magical effect - the minority members announced en bloc that they would rather withdraw from the Association than spend any more on it.

At the time of the Association's annual meeting in February 1924, the research programme had been living on its fat since cessation of funding the previous October. The withdrawal of the minority members was confirmed, and it was resolved that the Association should be wound up as soon as the money reserves ran out.

On 6/10/1924 A C Davis sent the DSIR a letter informing them of a resolution of the Council that the Association should be wound up. The timing of the communication is significant; on 18/9/1924, Henry Spence Horne had claimed control of A/BPCM and had forced a reorganisation of their respective Boards, with six of the "old guard" resigning, replaced by four Horne nominees, including his brother. Percy Malcolm Stewart became the new Chairman, and promptly ordered that no further resources should be wasted on BPCRA. It remained only to work out how to detach the company in a financially advantageous way. Henry Horne's involvement was brief, but by the time he went bankrupt, with his financial backing evaporating, the deed was done.

On 15/10/1924, Panisset met with A L Hetherington and Murray & Gentleman, the proceedings recorded as follows:

1. Mr Panisset called to inform the Department unofficially what the Research Association proposed to do in the immediate future about winding up. He said that a resolution was shortly to be put to a general meeting of the Association to the effect that as there was no prospect of Government support being continued and as the firms were not prepared to continue their subscriptions, the Research Association would wind up early in 1925.
2. He said that in order to increase the liquid funds of the Association and to enable researches in hand to be completed, it was proposed to arrange a loan from the Bank on the security of the freehold premises and equipment. As the Bank would probably not give a very satisfactory loan on this security, it was proposed to obtain an additional loan from a Cement firm. The property would then be sold in the open market and it was calculated that the assets and liabilities would approximately balance.
3. Under paragraph 9 of the Memorandum of Association any disposal of assets had to be made with the concurrence of the Department and as we had asked to be kept informed, he had come to give the Department an account of these proposals.

He went on to say that there was no prospect of further participation from the industry, due to apathy among the minority members. Hetherington informed H T Tizard of this meeting, saying there was now no prospect of the Association being continued in any form, and that there would be no assets to transfer to a successor. He added:

This case shows that financial stringency is not the only cause for failure. Here there is money but no real desire for research, at all events on a cooperative basis.

On 22/10/1924 Panisset sent the secretary of DSIR a formal letter as follows:

Dear Sir,
You have already received a copy of a report by the Chairman dated the 6th instant embodying a resolution which was passed by the Council dealing with the winding up of the association which was foreshadowed in the Chairman's speech to the members at the Annual Meeting in February last when reporting upon the cessation of the Government Grant and the subscriptions from the Industry.
It will shortly be necessary for the Council to take definite steps in connection with the proposed liquidation of the Association, and so as to continue the work of research for just as long as the assets of the Association will enable salaries to be paid, a proposal is to be considered (which it is hoped you will endorse) that the Bank should be asked to advance a loan secured partly on the freehold property of the Association (Rosherville Court) and the equipment and apparatus contained therein, and partly by a guarantee which it is hoped to obtain either from the members of the Council or from one of the member firms of the Association.
The object of introducing a guarantor (Note 14), is to obtain a larger sum from the Bank than could be otherwise secured so as to enable the Association to have a longer life to complete the work in hand.
When the funds in hand and the loan from the Bank are nearly exhausted, it will then be necessary to wind up the Association and this it was explained in our letter to your Department of the 5th September 1923 would happen when the effect of the Government's withdrawal of financial support was felt by the Trade.
The whole of the property of the Association would then have to be sold by public advertisement and either by Auction or by Tender and the proceeds would be devoted to repayment of the loan from the Bank and any balance of overdraft must be made up the guarantors.
If the Cement Company or the Council acts as a guarantor, it would have no preference in regard to the purchase of the property, as it would be put up for open competition in values and sold to the highest bidder and it is reasonable to assume that such guarantors would not guarantee a larger sum than could be expected from the sale of the assets.
The sole object of putting forward this proposal is to obtain as much money as possible in order to permit of the development of the research work in hand to finality or to its utmost point.
The Director of Research holds the view that if time allows of the completion of certain work, results of considerably greater value would accrue than if the research work had to be stopped in January as it will if only the cash funds of the Association are available.
The Council think it is due to the members of the Association who have contributed so largely to the funds that they should have the maximum benefit collectively, and it is only with this end in view that it is proposed to convert as far as possible, all the assets of the Association into money for the payment of the technical staff for as long a time as possible.
The proposal that has thus been outlined will probably be considered by the Council at their next meeting early in November and the Chairman would be obliged if the Government Department could inform me by the end of the month that they concur in this procedure.
Yours faithfully,
S G S Panisset
Secretary

On 25/10/1924, G R Young wrote to Sir John Snell (Note 15), as follows:

Dear Sir John Snell,
The Portland Cement Research Association was inspected over l5 months ago and after consideration of the report the Advisory Council decided that they could not recommend any continuance of the grant to the Association. The report was an extremely satisfactory one but the Council considered that the industry was well able to bear the whole cost of the Association. Since then it has been living upon the accumulated surplus which is now nearly exhausted; we learn that the Association is to be wound up early next year although we understand that the industry has no difficulty in raising a considerable sum for publicity purposes. These facts were mentioned at the Advisory Council meeting last Wednesday and it was thought that a meeting should be held with the Chairman of the Research Association (together possibly with members of his Council) to discuss the whole position and to ascertain whether the decision is irrevocable. Sir Richard Threlfall and Sir George Goodwin kindly promised to attend the meeting and I have been asked to enquire whether you too could possibly spare the time to attend.
The meeting has been arranged for 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday next, 29th, in this office; your presence would be very helpful and I trust you will find it possible to be present.
Yours very truly,
G R Young

An undated filenote (around 28/10/1924), marked confidential, was issued as follows:

Notes on the Portland Cement Research Association
This Association owes its existence to the Application for grant made by a Joint Committee of the Associated Portland Cement Co., Ltd., and the British Portland Cement Co., Ltd., which had been carrying on research on a modest scale for some years prior to the establishment of the Research Association. The annual rate of expenditure of the Association during the last few years has been of the order of £7000. The normal subscription income was about £3,700 (on which £ for £ grant was paid), but during the last two years of the quinquennial grant period the members, with a view to building up a reserve fund, doubled their subscriptions with the result that at the end of the grant period 30/9/1923, the Association had a free balance of about £11,000, that is to say, enough to continue the work on the same scale for a further period of 18 months.
By way of assets the Association has the freehold property known as Rosherville Court for which £1,750 was paid in 1921, and on which a further sum of about £2,250 was spent on alterations while the equipment etc. was estimated in September 1922 to be worth about £2,935. The Advisory Council minute on the subject of further grant aid to the Association reads as follows:-
The Secretary reported that he had had a conference with representatives of the Portland Cement Research Association and had indicated to them that there was no likelihood of further grant aid being made to the Association as at present constituted. He had discussed with the Association the possibility of widening its scope and enlarging its membership so as to include makers of all forms of cement (Note 16) but it appeared there might be difficulties in securing this object.
The council to recommend that a letter be addressed to the Portland Cement Research Association congratulating it on its success in regard to its considerable achievements and on the fact that it has been placed on a satisfactory financial basis as a result of which no further aid from the Government is required. (minute of J23/7/1923)
The Association felt unable to continue the work without Government assistance, and steps were then undertaken to wind up the affairs of the Association.
Recently, Mr Elsmore representing Messrs Hutchison and Cuff solicitors to a proposed British Portland Cement Association (Note 17) called at the department. Mr Elsmore explained that it was proposed to form this new association mainly for propaganda and publicity work in connection with the industry. The income of the association is to be derived from a levy of 6d per ton of cement produced but a rebate will be given on cement made for export. Members will be asked to give a legal guarantee for the continuance of their subscription for a period of five years.
Mr Elsmore added that the proposal to form this new Association has the support of the bulk of the industry, and that being the case an income of about £50,000 per annum was assured for five years.

31/10/1924: J G Evans asked for the annual subscriptions and grants for the BPCRA to date:

Year commencing 1 OctSubscriptions £Grant £
191825002500
191932953295
192037503745
192175506275
192275506275
total2464522090

On Wednesday 29/10/1924, a meeting was held, attended by Sir R Threlfall, Sir G Goodwin, Sir J Snell, H T Tizard, Dr G R Young and J G Evans representing DSIR, and A C Davis representing BPCRA. The official memorandum of the meeting was as follows:

1. The conference was held for the purpose of discussing the decision to wind up the Portland Cement Research Association.
2. Mr Davis explained their proposals in regard to winding up. The Association had now on hand a sum of about £3,000 - sufficient to carry on the work until about the end of January. The termination of the Association's activities at that date would mean that the work would be left in an incomplete and unsatisfactory state. A mass of information had been collected which, before it could be presented in useful form to the members, would have to be collated. In the opinion of the Director of Research, this collation would take until the end of April. There would be, however, no money in hand with which to carry on the work for that length of time and consequently it had been proposed by the Council that a loan (£2,000 was mentioned by Mr Davis) should be obtained from the bank, secured partly on the freehold property (Rosherville Court) and the equipment and apparatus, and partly by a guarantee from the Council or from one of the member firms. In this way sufficient funds would be obtained to wind up the research work satisfactorily. It was then proposed that the property should be sold in the open market, the proceeds being devoted to the repayment of the loan.
Mr Davis said that to him this was the only possible way, and that he was most anxious that all information obtained by the Association should be given to members in the most complete and assimilable form. This could not be done without the work of collation to which he referred. He desired to avoid any suspicion that results had been in any way withheld.
3. It was explained to Mr Davis that the proposals made for winding up seemed to be in accordance with the Memorandum of Association, though the Department had not as yet fully considered this aspect. What the Department questioned was the wisdom of winding up at all. The Department had made grants to the Association for a period of five years in the hope that by so doing, the industry as a whole would be convinced of the value of research. The report of the independent scientific experts had been most favourable as to the value of the work done. They had found that very useful practical results had already been obtained, and that there was good promise of further results if the work was continued. A decision to wind up in these circumstances seemed most shortsighted, because it did not appear that it was the financial state of the industry that prevented the Association from being continued independently of State aid.
4. Mr Davis stated that the Department's experiment had not been a failure so far as the firms he represented (who controlled about 75% of the industry) were concerned. These firms were quite sympathetic to research and fully appreciated the value of the results already achieved (one of which would be the reduction of fuel consumption in burning cement from 33⅓% to 26% Note 18). He went on to say that when the Association's premises were put up to auction, he believed that he would secure authority from his fellow directors to purchase the whole concern and continue it as a research Department of his own companies. The difficulty had been with the remaining 25%. According to Mr Davis, these had always been obstructionists (Note 19). They had no conception of the meaning of research, and had never taken the trouble to read the reports or tried to realise the value of the results obtained. Mr Davis seemed obviously desirous of cutting adrift from what, in his opinion, was the unprogressive section of the industry. Mr Davis said he was quite convinced that no efforts to interest this section in research would succeed. It had proved quite impossible to induce the Cement Makers' Federation to continue support of the Association in the absence of Government aid.
5. Reference was made to the formation of the new publicity organisation (the British Portland Cement Association), with an income of £50,000 per annum. It was pointed out that if the industry was prepared to raise that sum for publicity, it ought to need a small effort only to induce it to raise 1/7th of the amount for research, which was all the independent experts thought was necessary, especially as research ought to prove a useful publicity factor. Mr Davis replied that his latest knowledge was that the proposal for the formation of this new Association was being dropped.
6. Sir Richard Threlfall, in conclusion, expressed the regret of the Department at what appeared on the face of it, to be a substantial failure of the Department's scheme in the case of the British Portland cement industry, despite the good work that had been done by the Association.
Mr Davis then withdrew.

On Friday 31/10/1924, J G Evans sent the memorandum to G R Young, along with a manuscript memo as follows:

I submit herewith a memorandum of the conference on Wednesday.
Presumably it is proposed now to consult the Treasury Solicitor and I attach a draft minute for that purpose. It has occurred to me that it is not quite clear why the £3000 which Mr Davis said they had in hand should not be sufficient to carry on the Association after January. As we know the rate of expenditure of the Association is £7000 per annum or thereabouts so that £3000 should suffice for about 6 months. Possibly of course commitments have been entered into in connection with agreements with the staff which will absorb some portion of £3000. Do you think I might ring up Mr Panisset to get some more information on this?
Another point is this. It is obvious that there will be no other bidder in the market except the APCM & BPCM so that they will likely get the concern at their own price if it is sold as one lot. The equipment, however, might realise much more if sold in separate lots & that is partly the reason for the penultimate paragraph in the draft to the Treasury Solicitor. We may be able to exercise some control over the arrangements for sale.
Again if the loan from the bank, as guaranteed by the Council or by the member firm is fixed at a pretty high figure, it seems to me that we should be assured that the APCM &c would not be able to acquire the property at a ridiculously low price. What in effect we might be able to do is this. We should say to the Association that in our opinion they can usefully carry on work for another x months (should scientific opinion justify such a statement) & that we think in the interests of members as a whole they ought to do it and for that purpose raise from the bank £y estimated to be sufficient to continue for the x months (secured by the member firm - assumed to be the APCM group), £y being fixed in relation to the fair value of the premises. If we can do this under the powers given us in Clause 9 of the memorandum, we should at least make sure that the property is not, so to speak, given to the APCM &c to the detriment of the interests of the other members who contributed towards its purchase. Perhaps this point could be explored orally with the Treasury Solicitor.
I only put forward the above suggestions, which are based on assumptions, as possibly being worth consideration. I am not clear that we can intervene at all effectively.

On 5/11/1924, a further note by J G Evans was appended to the 29/10/1924 memorandum, after A C Davis had "withdrawn":-

Subsequently it was agreed that steps should be taken by officers of the Department to consult a member of the Council of the Research Association representative of the 25% of members outside the "Combine", in order to ascertain at first hand the views of that section of the industry.

Already on 3/11/1924, J G Evans had noted that Mr Palmer of the Board of Trade had been consulted on suitable contacts in the minority group and had said:

Nelson & Co. appear to be quite independent of the APCM & BPCM.
Ship Canal Co. also appear to be independent of the APCM & BPCM. Apparently this firm is under the control of a company itself under the control of Furness Withy (a shipping firm).

He wrote to G R Young appending this note, saying:

The above is the result of Mr Palmer's enquiries. As you know, Mr C E Blyth of Nelson & Co. is on the Council of BPCRA.
The Ship Canal Co. representative is not on the council so far as we know, but it is probably the most important of the firms included in the 25%.

Accordingly, on 11/11/1924 H T Tizard sent a letter to C E Blyth of Charles Nelson & Co. (Stockton) as follows:-

The Department, on a recent occasion, discussed with Mr A C Davis, as Chairman of the Portland Cement Research Association, the proposal to wind up the Research Association. Such a step would be greatly deplored by the Department, in view of the valuable work that has been done, and especially as it is understood that the decision has been reached mainly as the result of lack of interest on the part of a number of the constituent Companies and not as the result of financial stringency.
The Department would appreciate an opportunity of ascertaining your views, and would therefore be very glad if you could arrange to call here at some convenient time, in order to discuss the matter further. If you agree to come perhaps you will be so good as to suggest one or two alternative dates, during this week or next, that would. suit you.
I am to add that the Chairman of the Research Association will be informed of this invitation when s date has been fixed, in order that he may attend should be wish to do so.
Yours faithfully,
H T Tizard

On the same day, Tizard wrote to the Treasury Solicitor asking for a ruling on the legitimacy of BPCRA's proposals:-

Treasury Solicitor
By official letter dated 9/4/1919 - copy attached - the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research offered grants to the British Portland Cement Research Association. After the expiry of the first quinquennial grant period in September, 1923, it was clear that the Association had reached a point at which the industry should be able to continue the Association independently of State aid, and the Association was therefore informed that no further grant would be made. The Association has now decided to wind up its affairs. The proposed process by which the winding up is to be carried out is described in a letter from the Association dated 22nd October, of which a copy is enclosed. Briefly, it amounts to this, that in attempting to conclude the work in hand, the Association intends to raise a loan from the bank secured partly on the free-hold property of the Association and on the equipment and apparatus, and partly by a guarantee from the Council or from one of the member firms. This loan, it is estimated, would suffice to enable the work to be satisfactorily completed, and the property would then be sold in the open market, the proceeds being devoted to the repayment of the loan. This process seems quite in accordance with Clause 9 of the Memorandum of Association (copy enclosed), but the Department would be glad to have your advice as to whether this view is correct.
HTT

This received a prompt and terse response from the Solicitor's department:

The course proposed is in no way prohibited by the Memorandum of Association.

In other words, if you allowed them to write the MoA in that way, it's your fault. On 12/11/1924, Tizard sent a letter to Percy Ashley of the Board of Trade:-

Dear Ashley,
You may have already heard that the Portland Cement Research Association has decided to wind up its affairs. The Association proposes to obtain a loan from the bank (£2,000 was mentioned), secured partly on the freehold property (Rosherville Court) and the equipment and apparatus, and partly by a guarantee from the Council or from one of the member firms. In this way sufficient funds would be obtained to wind up the research work satisfactorily, for the benefit of all the members.
The decision to wind up had been reached, we are informed by Mr A C Davis, Chairman of. the Council of the Association, owing to the apathy towards research displayed by the firms who are not included in the Portland Cement Combine. The position may be as represented by Mr Davis, but we are not sure we are in full possession of all the facts of the case and we think it might be useful to hear at first hand the views of the minority firms. Accordingly after informal consultation with your Mr Palmer as to the most suitable man to approach, we have invited Mr C E Blyth, a member of the Council and a representative of Messrs Nelson & Co., to come and discuss the position with us.
The procedure for disposing of the property of the Association seems to be in accordance with the Memorandum of Association, but it will quite possibly have the result of enabling the Portland Cement Combine to acquire the property at a small figure for their own purposes. This is not a development that we should welcome, and we are anxious to do all we can to persuade the members outside the Combine to continue co-operative research. Mr Davis, speaking on behalf of his group of firms, expressed himself as entirely favourable to the continuation of the Research Association as a whole.
The position is rather a curious one, and I am not sure we know all that is happening. Perhaps you can throw some light on it and give us some advice.
Yours sincerely,
H T Tizard

On the same day, he received a reply from C E Blyth:-

Dear Sir,
I am much obliged to you for yours of the 11th inst. re. proposal to wind up the Portland Cement Research Association. Personally I feel very strongly on this matter, and should be very glad to accept your invitation to discuss the question.
Unfortunately my time is completely booked up until Thursday or 'Friday next (between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.) either of which days I would make convenient if I may hear from you in the next two days.
Yours faithfully,
Chas. E. Blyth

Tizard fixed a day, and on 14/11/1924 wrote to A C Davis:-

Dear Sir,
With reference to-the interview here on the 29th ultimo, on the subject of the winding up of the British Portland Cement Research Association, I am writing to say that in view of your statement as to the lack of interest in research on the part of the section of the industry which is not associated with your companies, and of the willingness of your companies to proceed. with co-operative research if this were possible, an invitation has been issued to Mr C.E. Blyth of Messrs Nelson & Co., who is a member of the. Council of the Research Association, to call here at 12 noon on Friday, the 21st instant, to discuss the position.
The Department would. be pleased to see you at this time if you would like to be present.
Yours faithfully
H T Tizard

Tizard here reiterated his misunderstanding of Davis' position. At the meeting of 29/10/1924, Davis had said his firms "were quite sympathetic to research" but made no mention of cooperative research. In his reply on 17/11/1924, Davis was vociferous in his denial of any intention to cooperate in further research:-

Dear Sir,
I am obliged with your letter of the 14th instant and observe that you propose to interview Mr C. Blyth, and I thank you for your kind invitation to be present on Friday. You are aware of course that the proposals as to winding up have been before the Council on numerous occasions and have been approved by the members of the Council.
I should like, however, to correct the impression you have that my Company would be willing to continue with cooperative research. In view of our experience in the past we should not desire to do this and I am afraid this view has arisen on account of the fact that I stated to you that we ourselves consider research so useful and necessary to the trade that when the time came for winding up I very much hoped and I believed that I could get the authority of my Directors to continue the good work on our own behalf (Note 20) - but not cooperatively.
Yours faithfully,
A C Davis

Just to ram the point home, he also telephoned J G Evans - a conversation that Evans related to G R Young:-

Dr Young,
Mr A C Davis rang up today in connection with Mr Tizard's letter of the 14th inst. Mr Davis said that before the department saw Mr Blyth, he wished to correct the statement made in that letter that his companies are willing to proceed with cooperative research if that were possible. He said he thought he had made it clear at the interview on the 29th ult. that the position is as follows. The Combine is fully alive to the importance of research & Mr Davis is hopeful of securing authority from his fellow directors to buy Rosherville Court etc & continue the concern as a Research Department to the Associated companies. But in view of the refusal of the minority to continue their subscriptions after the five year period, & of the difficulties they had caused in running the RA, the Combine is not now prepared to carry on any longer in cooperation with them. The Combine prefers to be able to carry on research without interference from the unprogressive section.
J G E

After a few days' reflection, on 21/11/1924 Tizard finally made a formal reply to Panisset's formal letter of 22/10/1924, primly refusing to give either a positive or negative view of the Association's proposals, meaning that the decision was theirs alone. He wrote:-

Sir,
I am directed by the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial :Research to refer to your letter of the 22nd October (reference P/FJ), describing the steps proposed in connection with the winding up of your Association, and in reply to say that while the Committee of Council regret the termination of the activities of the Association, in view of the .good work that has been done since it inauguration, they have no observations on the steps suggested to be taken with that end in view.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
H T Tizard

Whether this letter went out before or after the meeting held on the same day is unclear. The meeting attended by H T Tizard, Dr G R Young and J G Evans representing DSIR, and A C Davis and C E Blyth representing BPCRA. The official memorandum of the meeting was as follows:

1. The interview had been arranged following upon the decision at the interview with Mr A C Davis on the 29th October, that steps should be taken by officers of the Department to consult a member of the Council of the Research Association representative of the 25% of members not connected with the Combine, in order to ascertain at first hand the views of that minority section of the industry on the Research Association.
2. Mr Tizard referred to the above interview, saying that Mr Davis had then explained that the decision to wind up was the result of lack of interest on the part of the section of the industry outside the Associated firms, and he asked Mr Blyth, as a member of the Council whose firm is included amongst the minority section, to give his views as to the position of that section.
3. Mr Blyth said that the reason for lack of interest of the minority firms is "ignorance". With few exceptions, they did not read the reports issued by the Association, or even if they did, they felt them to be rather "above their heads". They had not the necessary technical staff to interpret the reports and to translate the information into factory practice. They expected practical results at an early date. but though in point of fact their expectation had been fulfilled, they had not sufficient knowledge to realise it. Mr Blyth added that he was of opinion that if the Association could be continued for a further two years, results of sufficiently striking importance would be obtained to convince even the minority of the value of research, and the Association would thereby be firmly established.
4. Mr Tizard said he thought that one contributory cause to the lack of interest might be that Gravesend, the site of the research laboratories, was rather inaccessible, and there might have been some difficulty in consequence in keeping the members in direct touch with the work. He asked whether, in point of fact, the Director of Research had been in the habit of visiting all his constituent firms. The reply was that few visits had been made by the Director to firms outside the Combine, though it had been continually suggested to members that the Council would welcome invitations to the Director to pay visits to their works. In one case tests had been carried out at the works of a firm outside the Combine (namely, Messrs The Aberthaw and Roose Portland Cement and Lime Company, Ltd.), but this had been by the special request of the Research Association, as this firm happened to possess special plant of new design which the Research Association wanted to test (Note 21). The consent of this firm, apparently, had been difficult to obtain. Dr Martin had also visited the works of Messrs Casebourne and Co., Ltd., but this firm had looked askance at any idea of having tests carried out at their works (Note 22). Mr Davis stressed his view that the lack of contact with the firms outside the Combine was the fault of the firms themselves.
5. Mr Tizard asked whether it was that these outside firms had no belief in scientific research generally, or was it that they felt that the Research Association was not meeting their own particular needs? Mr Blyth said he would not be justified in saying that they had no belief in research. The main point was that these firms felt they had had no practical results in return for their subscriptions.
6. Mr Tizard, referring to the statement by Mr Davis that his companies had now decided not to continue research in cooperation with the outside firms, asked Mr Davis whether he felt that it was so much against the interest of his companies to carry out research cooperatively as to make this decision irrevocable even if the outside firms agreed to continue. Mr Davis made it clear that unless further Government support was forthcoming, there was no question of his firms reconsidering their decision. They would much prefer to be able to carry out research on their own lines, and free from outside interference. Mr Tizard said that he did not believe there was any possibility of any more Government grant being given, and it seemed, therefore, that there was no hope, in view of what Mr Davis had said, of keeping the Association in being. It was gratifying to the Department to learn, however, that the work of the Association had been so much appreciated that the firms represented by Mr Davis (comprising 75% of the industry) were likely to continue independently, though it was a cause for regret that the remainder of the industry had not sufficiently realised what they were losing by discontinuing the Research Association.
7. In conclusion, Mr Tizard told Mr Blyth that if he saw any change of attitude on the part of the minority section, the Department would be glad at any time to hear their views and give such advice as was possible.

This memorandum was shown to the Permanent Secretary and administrative head of DSIR, Henry Frank Heath, who commented:-

Very unfortunate but I see no alternative. We could spend our money better than continuing our grant most of which would go to relieve the pockets of people who need no convincing and will otherwise pay the whole cost on the off chance of converting the 25% who are stupid & have learnt nothing in five years.

Why did it fail?

The picture that emerges is that the formation of the Association was instigated by A/BPCM, who would have preferred that the Government grant had been made solely to them, since they were committed to research and a grant could have allowed them to increase its scope. However, the DSIR naturally could not contemplate what would in fact be a subsidy to an individual private company, hence their insistence that the Association should serve the entire industry.

From the point of view of the "minor" companies, the idea of a small annual payment for access to useful research was attractive, and had there been a serious attempt to include them in the Association's processes - ideally giving them a preferred influence - then they would have continued to support the Association's work.

However, having roped-in the "minor" companies, A/BPCM gave at least the appearance of completely ignoring them in their monopolisation of the Association's resources. It is a moot point whether this was merely due to political naivety, or the result of a deliberate conspiracy. Suffice it to say that it quickly became apparent that the "Combine" was throwing its weight about in the manner for which it had become famous.

Matters were not improved by Geoffrey Martin's contribution of reams of gobbledygook, which would have been incomprehensible to must users, even if they had been correct, and much of it must have been "filed in the bin".

Withdrawal of Government support proved the last straw for the "minor" companies. When the winding up of the Association was proposed, the DSIR had to face the painful fact that their supervision of the Association had been insufficient, and that A/BPCM's designs for its remnants were probably malign. As it turned out, serious cement industry research was only continued by other Government-supported organisations such as the Building Research Establishment. The efforts of individual companies in R&D were minimal and introverted, and the lack of serious R&D expenditure and technological complacency was a recurrent criticism by successive Governments.

Blue Circle carried on the fundamentally sound approach to grinding theory, which was surface-area-based, but failed to make real progress due to the lack of suitable methods of measuring specific surface. Long and unsuccessful experiments with sedimentation and "elutriometry" were brought to a stop in the late 1930s, when the Government-funded BRE provided them with the air permeability technique. Kiln research was minimal until various equipment suppliers proved that it was they who would do the future cutting-edge research. The invention by FLS of the standard chain heat exchanger for wet process kilns immediately solved the inefficiency problems of the past, while in 1927, Polysius gave the world (but ignored by Britain) the Lepol Grate - the first efficient dry process heat exchanger. The rotary kiln "theory" and standard calculations developed in the early 1920s remained in use by Blue Circle almost un-modified until its demise in 2002.

NOTES

Note 1. Nature, 4023, 7/12/1946, pp 823-825. Heath was an academic and linguist, whose role here was as an educational administrator.

Note 2. John Bazley White III (b. 1848 Balham, d. 1927), grandson of the founder of JBW, became director in charge of technical development when the company went public in 1883, and was one of the eleven Managing Directors of APCM when it formed in 1900. In research, his role was purely as a figurehead, the real head being A. C. Davis.

Note 3. William Gilbert (b. 1867 Billinghay, Lincs, d. 1938) was a mechanical and civil engineer, son of a small farmer in Lincolnshire. He worked for the Lincoln-Spalding Railway in 1883 and in 1885 became apprenticed at the Ruston engine works. In 1889 he gained a scholarship to the City & Guilds College under William Cawthorne Unwin. From 1891 he worked for engineers Heenan & Froude, and in 1894 was said to be in charge of construction of the Blackpool Tower. He set up his own consultancy in 1895. His involvement with the cement industry is curious but easy to understand: his place of origin was near Timberland, Lincs, the place of origin of the Keeble brothers. George Hedley Keeble was his uncle. His first project was the construction of the Saxon plant for the Keeble brothers. His cousin Elsie Keeble married A. C. Davis. He worked on Norman, then on the rotary plant at Southam. He became manager of the A/BPCM research group in1913. After BPCRA, he continued contributing articles on kiln thermodynamics (despite his total ignorance of chemistry) until his death.

Note 4. Arthur Charles Davis (b. 1876 Hoylake, d. 1950) was the son of the Head Postmaster at Birkenhead, and trained as a Post Office engineer, but married George Keeble's daughter in Cambridge, and, put in charge of the tiny, backward Standard plant, instantly became the world's greatest cement expert. In 1904 he became a Fellow of the Chemical Society - they admitted anyone in those days. He functioned as a disruptive element when the Saxon company became part of BPCM in 1911, and the Stewart/Davis faction set itself against the creaky old guard of APCM until it finally triumphed in the boardroom coup d'état of 1924. Davis became Managing Director, and was Lord Mayor of London in 1945-1946.

Note 5. William Symington McCormick (b. 1859 Dumfries, d. 1930) was an educationalist who became involved in education funding in 1900, and was made Chairman of DSIR, with fellow-linguist Heath as Permanent Secretary. It emphasises the fact that the Government saw DSIR as primarily an educational project, which relied upon its clients being educable.

Note 6. John Wynford Philipps (b. 1860 Warminster, d. 1938) was MP for Pembrokeshire 1898-1908 before being made a peer. He became chairman of two trust companies as early as 1890, and was one of a consortium of funders - the "69 Old Broad Street Group" - which financed the formation of BPCM. Although Chairman of A/BPCM for the time being, he played no part in the operation of the companies.

Note 7. Nature, 106, No. 2667, 9 Dec 1920, pp 475-476. Sidney Glyde Stephen Panisset (b. 31/5/1877 Rotherhithe: d. 22/3/1937 Sutton, Surrey) was A. C. Davis's leg-man, and probably wrote most of the material published under Davis's name. He learned chemistry at the City & Guilds College, and became Works Chemist for Martin Earles in 1896. Davis stole him as Chemist for Saxon and Norman in 1907. He became Works Supervisor for APCM in 1912, and became the secretary of BPCRA (always based at A/BPCM's head office) when it formed. He dealt with most communications with the DSIR. He became APCM's Director of Research in 1931.

Note 8. The sixteen-kiln installation at Swanscombe originally had one short stack for each kiln, providing natural draught, but the enormous quantity of dust that they emitted near ground level forced a re-think, and when the kilns were uprated in 1907, two high stacks were built. Obviously the kilns furthest from the stack had least stack suction. Furthermore, any change in the damper on one kiln caused a change in the other seven. A simple partial fix, implemented in 1920, was to add a third stack half-way down the flue, reducing these effects by roughly 75%. It did not need a team of experts to recommend this.

Note 9. This is a reference to the use of East Midlands low-grade coal, available in London by rail, that became necessary during the wartime blockade of sea-borne coal supply from Tyneside that the Thamesside industry had traditionally used. They finally converted two kilns to coal dryers to deal with the muddy duff coal.

Note 10. "Why don't you just do it?" I hear you shout at them!

Note 11. This jaw-dropping remark really says it all. It is typical of the casual contemptuous disregard for the "little people" that was always a hallmark of APCM's MO. Of course, as it turned out, the success of the Association was entirely dependent upon the cooperation of individual members!

Note 12. Thomas Phillip Blyth (b. 1833, Poplar, d. 1896) was a London lime merchant taken into partnership with the Nelsons in 1870. Three of his sons - George Blackstone Blyth (b. 1868 Hampstead, d. 1950), Harold Francis Blyth (b. 1869 Galle, Sri Lanka, d. 1960) and Charles Edward Blyth (b. 1870 Stockton, d. 1940) - became directors of the company in 1894 and ran the company until it was absorbed by Rugby in 1945. Although Stockton was the first of the Warwickshire plants to close, in the early years it was the most important and progressive.

Note 13. See for example my note on his thermodynamics.

Note 14. The guarantor would, of course, be APCM, so that, one way or another, the fixed assets of the Association would revert to them. The DSIR, although perhaps naive, were not stupid, and saw through this immediately. They now knew what sort of people they dealing with.

Note 15. John Francis Cleverton Snell (b Saltash 1859, d 1938) was a graduate Electrical Engineer during the Heroic Age of that discipline. By 1914, he was President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. Co-opted into government during the war, he became member of a number of steering committees, including that of DSIR. Here he was recruited as a "big gun" to persuade the BPCRA to continue. He went on to head the creation of the CEGB and the National Grid, to the benefit of all in the cement industry.

Note 16. A daft suggestion - Portland cement was virtually the entire industry, and roping in non-Portland businesses would have had little effect.

Note 17. This was finally launched on 12/12/1924.

Note 18. In modern terms, from 9.4 to 7.3 MJ/kg. A specious claim, since it had mainly been achieved by scrapping old, small kilns and buying newer, bigger ones.

Note 19. Their obstruction, no doubt, consisted of saying "Not another APCM project! Surely you could do something that everybody would be interested in!"

Note 20. As we have seen, all the work to date had been "on their own behalf".

Note 21. This was the Polysius Solo kiln (incidentally a technological dead-end) that Martin thought might be "the way forward".

Note 22. The Billingham plant had by then fallen within the influence of the incipient ICI, and would indeed have looked askance at the technological minnows of the cement industry.

Note 23.