Contested Histories: De-mythologising the Early History of Modern British Computing - History of Computing: Learning from the Past - page 64

problem is no demonstration that there were two different computing projects at
Bletchley Park only one of which, the Flowers project, led to the successful develop-
ment of a machine. Nor, it must be said, has anyone ever suggested otherwise. Simi-
larly, even were it the case that the Manchester mathematicians had absolutely no
involvement in the detailed circuit design of the Baby we would require more evi-
dence to show that there were two different computer building projects in existence
only one of which was a success. If Williams had been engaged in an independent
attempt to build a computer it should be possible to find confirmation in the form of
contemporaneous documents. The civilian effort to develop a computer (or com-
puters) at Manchester was not subject to official secrecy restrictions and there is no
reason to suppose that evidence would be hard to find. There are plenty of documents
confirming Newman's activity. We can trace his initial interest in developing a com-
puter to his experience of the Colossus. Newman's intention to build a computer at
Manchester is confirmed in numerous documents. We can follow in reasonable detail
In Williams' case, the documentary evidence of his interest in developing a storage
device for use in a computing machine is incontrovertible but there is nothing, that I
am aware of which suggests he had any personal interest in developing a computer at
Manchester or elsewhere. He is not called on by the University authorities to report on
progress independently of Newman's Royal Society funded project. The evidence for
an independent project led by Williams is scant and almost entirely non-documentary.
Construing Williams to have been engaged on a rival project requires a great deal of
contrary evidence to be set to one side and demands a very partial interpretation to be
applied to what remains.
Another ground on which Lavington and others have argued that Williams was en-
gaged on an independent computer project revolves around finances. The two project
myth treats as very significant a lack of spending on the development of the Baby out
of Royal Society funds. The claim that the Baby enjoyed from the outset significant
financial support from TRE in contrast to a complete or almost complete lack of fi-
nancial assistance from Newman and the Royal Society until after the Baby was com-
plete may be termed the financial myth. Lavington sets out the position in a fairly
neutral way:
“The Royal Society grant of £35,000 remained substantially intact for several
years, eventually providing for the construction of a building to house the
University's Ferranti Mark 1 computer in 1951.” [11] Brian Napper,
although somewhat strident in tone, does make very clear the important role
of the financial myth in supporting the two project myth:
“There is no question that the “Baby” was Williams' project not Newman's
(and effectively funded by the TRE). The confusion is caused because
Newman got a grant of £20000 capital + 5 * £3000 per year for wages to
build a computer from the Royal Society in 1946. Also the room the Baby was
built in was called the Royal Society Computing Machine Laboratory. I won't
go into the full debate, but in my mind the empirical proof is in the University
records, which show that “Royal Society” was stripped from the name after a
year or two, and all the capital and the remaining half of the wages in New-
man's grant was spent in 1950 on a new building to house the Ferranti Mark
I -the 3rd generation of Williams' (and Kilburn's) computers !!” [12]