208R. Michael Sadler to Harrod, 24 April 1931 [a]

Having read with more care the majority report, in the light of the qualifications allowing adaptation of the new building in Broad Street to the needs of scholars, Sadler has changed his mind, [1] and now thinks that the differences could be composed. He therefore aligned with the unanimity of the curators of the Bodleian in accepting the majority report.

  1. 1. On 23 March, Sadler had written to Harrod that having read the Bodleian Library Commission's Report (1931), he was undeservedly with Harrod. He thought that there was a basis for agreement if the main points of Harrod's report were substituted for the corresponding points in the majority report (in HP VI-17. Cc in MS. Top. Oxon. c.633, fol. 61. Sadler's argument and agreement with Harrod was repeated in a letter to Alic Smith, 23 March 1931, in MS. Top. Oxon. c.633, fol. 62). Harrod explains that he did not feel able to adhere to the majority view because this "was not only not the best possible but would, if given effect, be worse than nothing and would block development in future". Harrod also expressed confidence the Rockefeller people were sympathetic with his point of view (letter to Sadler, 23 March 1931, in MS. Top. Oxon. c.633, fol. 59-60) (Harrod actually made sure that the Rockefeller Foundation was informed of his point of view and would support his position: see letters 206 R and 207 R).
    1. a. From The Master's Lodgings, University College, Oxford # , three pages TLS, with envelope addressed to Christ Church, in HP VI-21; Cc in MS. Top. Oxon. c.633, fols 76-78.

Welcome page

top of page

Return to index of this section

Go to previous page

Go to next page