Britain, 1846-1919 9780415257077

Citation preview

Britain, 1846–1919

Britain, 1846–1919 is an exciting new approach to teaching and learning late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century British History at A-level, up to and including the First World War. It meets the needs of teachers and students studying for today’s AS-level exams. In a unique style, Britain, 1846–1919 focuses on the key topics within the period. Each topic is then comprehensively explored to provide background, essay-writing advice and examples, source work and historical skills exercises. From 1846 to 1919, the key topics featured include: • • • • •

The Age of the Railways Public Health and Social Policy Gladstone and Disraeli at Home and Abroad The Irish Question The Liberal and Coalition Ministries in the Early Twentieth Century

Using essay styles and source exercises from each of the exam boards, AQA, Edexcel and OCR, this book is an essential text for students and teachers. Jocelyn Hunt is Head of Education at the Cabinet War Rooms. Her books include The French Revolution (1998) and Spain, 1474–1598 (2000). She is series editor for Routledge’s Questions and Analysis in History series.

Spotlight History

Forthcoming titles: Europe, 1890–1945 Stephen J. Lee Britain in the Twentieth Century Ian Cawood The United States, 1763–2000 John Spiller. Tim Clancey, Stephen Young and Simon Mosley

Jocelyn Hunt

Britain, 1846–1919

First published 2003 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2003 Jocelyn Hunt Typeset in Minion and Helvetica Neue Light by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been applied for

ISBN 0–415–25707–7 (hbk) ISBN 0–415–25708–5 (pbk)

Contents

List of Illustrations Acknowledgements Series Introduction

vi viii ix

1

An Introduction to the Period

1

2

At Home and Abroad, 1846–68

7

3

The Age of the Railways: Transport and the Economy, 1846–1918

4

Public Health and Social Policy, 1846–1919

109

5

Gladstone and Disraeli at Home and Abroad, 1868–94

155

6

The Irish Question, 1845–1921

207

7

The Conservative Ascendancy? Britain, 1895–1906

255

8

The Liberal and Coalition Ministries, 1906–19

303

9

Conclusions and Next Steps

359

Biographies of Important Personalities Glossary of Key Terms Bibliography and Suggestions for Further Reading Index

59

367 383 390 393

Illustrations

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.1

John Russell, 1st earl Russell (1792–1878), prime minister George Hamilton Gordon, 4th earl of Aberdeen (1784–1860), prime minister Henry Temple, 3rd viscount Palmerston (1784–1865), prime minister Queen Victoria in mourning, 1861 Family tree of the descendants of Queen Victoria Map of Europe in 1846 Map of England and Wales, circa 1857, showing the extent of railways and canals Paddle steamer leaving Liverpool, 1888 Threshing by hand in an English farmyard, 1846 Garrett’s steam thresher, 1863 Artist’s impression of a railway excursion, circa 1860 Exterior of St Pancras station, 1908 ‘Father Thames’ cartoon, Punch, 1858 ‘The Right Ticket for You!’, a poster issued by the Liberal Party in 1911 Graph of poor relief in England and Wales, 1840–1900 Historical skills exercise ‘Vote Auction’ satirical cartoon, Punch, 1853 William Ewart Gladstone (1809–98), prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield (1804–81), prime minister Map of the Balkans before 1878 Map of the Balkans according to the Treaty of San Stephano, 1878 Map of the Balkans after the Congress of Berlin, 1878 Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquis of Salisbury (1830–1903), prime minister Map showing the extent of the British Empire in 1902 Charles Stewart Parnell in gaol with John Dillon, 1881 ‘The Non-Stop Car’ cartoon, Punch, 1916 Eamon de Valera addressing a meeting of Sinn Fein, October 1917 Map of Ireland in 1914 Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquis of Salisbury (1830–1903), prime minister James Keir Hardie (1856–1915) Arthur James Balfour, 1st earl of Balfour (1848–1930), prime minister Queen Victoria’s funeral, 1901 Map of South Africa Map of European powers in Africa before the Scramble for Africa, 1878 Map of European powers in Africa after the Scramble, 1914 ‘Rich Fare’ cartoon, Punch, 1909

11 13 14 30 55 56 63 64 68 69 80 97 118 126 145 153 159 160 161 164 164 165 169 172 212 215 216 236 258 259 260 263 265 266 266 307

ILLUSTRATIONS • vii

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st earl of Oxford and Asquith (1852–1928), prime minister Crowds at the funeral of Emily Davison, 14 June 1913 Colliers at the Clay Cross mine at Chesterfield, Derbyshire, circa 1910 The Dreadnought, Royal Navy battleship Map of Europe showing alignments in 1914 British army recruitment poster, circa 1915

308 311 314 316 317 337

Acknowledgements The author and publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce material: The National Portrait Gallery (Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2); Mary Evans Picture Literary (Figures 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.1, 5.8, 6.1, 7.4, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7); Mary Evans Library/The Women’s Library (Figure 8.3); Popperfoto (Figure 6.3); Punch Limited (Figures 4.1, 6.2, 8.1); Hulton Getty Archives (Figure 4.2); Hodder & Stoughton (Figure 4.3). While every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge ownership of copyright material used in this volume, the publishers will be glad to make suitable arrangements with any copyright holders whom it has not been possible to contact.

Series Introduction

The aim of this book is to help prepare you for the papers in AS History. It is written very much with the AS specifications in mind, although it is clearly desirable to use other books as well. It is also hoped that the advice given in this book will be valuable to students preparing for courses other than AS. Each chapter is divided into standard parts, the purpose of which is to combine essential knowledge and the various skills necessary to achieve the highest grade in line with the AS specifications. Part of the chapter

Purpose

Method

The first page of each chapter takes the form of a ‘map’ or outline of the chapter. The purpose is to enable the reader to ‘navigate’ through each topic, amd to see which aspects of the subject form the focus of each part. Part 1: Historical background

To provide the basic, factual backgrounds and issues related to each topic. This may also be relevant to some questions of the simpler format.

The factual narrative is structured to include all the key themes. A chronological summary is also provided to give perspective at a glance.

Part 2: Essays

To provide worked answers to the major aspects of each topic. These provide examples of interpretation and factual support.

The wording of the question varies to allow for different types of examination response. Further questions are provided for term-work and examination practice; these can be prepared through the further reading recommended.

Part 3: Source analysis

To provide a selection of some of the key sources – primary and secondary – for each topic and to examine the different types of questions which can be asked about these.

Each set of sources has two sets of questions: one with worked examples and one without. The questions without worked examples allow for class discussion or for individual practice.

x • SERIES INTRODUCTION Part 4: Historical skills

To provide some suggestions about how the topic can be used as a focus for selected skills not already covered in Parts 2 and 3.

The types of skills covered vary from chapter to chapter: they include discussion, presentation and research.

The rest of this general introduction deals with essays, source analysis, and historical skills as general concepts and briefly explains the essential meaning of each. The explanations are developed in each chapter by the use of specific examples.

Part 1: Historical background A good understanding of the topic in each chapter is essential before any meaningful analysis can be done. This involves three main approaches. Type of approach:

Reason for this:

How it is accomplished:

1. Outline perspective

An ability to visualise the structure of the topic covered in the chapter and the way in which components of the topic fit together.

Through the chronological summary, the headings and sub-headings, and the introductory paragraphs of each section.

2. Knowledge in depth

An ability to focus on parts of the topic in depth.

Through careful and systematic development of details. These are grouped within an overall structure.

3. Integrating perspective and depth

An ability to combine the overall perspective with a focus on specific selected details.

By relating the details to the interpretations in the essays.

Understanding of the historical background is also assisted by two sections at the end of the book. First, significant individuals are discussed in brief Biographies, beginning on p. 367. Second, there is a Glossary of Key Terms, which begins on p. 383. Words and phrases which are explained in the glossary are printed in bold on the first occasion that they appear in the text. The Glossary is in alphabetical order, for ease of reference.

SERIES INTRODUCTION • xi

Part 2: Essays What is an essay? An essay is a formal attempt to answer a question or to provide a solution to a problem; the term derives from the French ‘essayer’ and the Latin ‘exigere’, the latter meaning ‘to weigh’. The better the attempt, the higher the mark will be. There is usually no right or wrong solution. But there can be a solution which is presented well or badly, or which makes good or poor use of supporting material. An essay should always be written in full sentences and paragraphs and should not normally include notes or bullet points. Appropriate lengths vary considerably, but some idea can be gained by the worked answers in Part 2 of each chapter. Relevance is vital throughout. This means keeping exactly to the confines of the question asked. The answer should be direct and should start within the first sentence or two. You should also keep the question throughout the essay, answer all parts of it and include nothing which is not relevant to it. Think in terms of ‘The question, the whole question and nothing but the question’. Instruction

Meaning of instruction

Examples

Outline . . . Describe . . .

Provide a coherent summary of the topic or issue in the question. It is important to include at least some specific factual references. (‘Outline’, does not mean ‘be vague about’.) This type of instruction is less common than the others and, if it does appear, is more likely as a short question.

pp. 42, 79, 86, 130, 176, 227, 238, 277

Examine . . . Why. . .? Explain why . . .

The, emphasis switches from ‘describing’ to ‘providing reasons for’. This means looking at the question as a problem to be solved by a direct answer based on an argument which selects relevant factual information to support it.

pp. 29, 74, 121, 184, 240, 285, 344

Identify . . . and explain TWO . . .

In addition to the previous instruction, this involves choosing two areas to ‘explain’. Make sure that they are relevant to the question and that they can both act as a base for argument. This is common as a second question in a two-part structure.

xii • SERIES INTRODUCTION Assess . . . To what event . . . ? How far . . . ? How far do you agree . . . ? How valid is the view that . . . ? How successful was . . . ? How serious were . . . ? How important was . . . ? With what justification . . . ?

This group of instructions involves more directly the notion of ‘weighing’. It is therefore essential to have a clear idea of the ‘extent’ to which you ‘agree’ with the proposition put in the rest of the question. The extremes are ‘entirely’ or ‘not at all’. If you adopt one of these, you need to explain why the alternative is not acceptable. More likely are ‘to a very limited extent’ or ‘to a large extent, but not entirely.’ In ‘weighing’ two arguments you need to explain: why one is ‘heavier’ or ‘lighter’ than the other. It terms of style, it is better to avoid using ‘I’ in the answer even if there is a ‘you’ in the question.

pp. 71, 94, 117, 127, 141, 179, 184, 230, 268, 274, 288, 323, 344

Compare . . . Compare and contrast . . . Compare the importance of three reasons . . . Assess the relative importance of . . . How similar were . . .? How different were . . . ?

The approach will involve the process of ‘weighing’, as with the previous set of questions. There are, however, two or more specific items to ‘weigh’. These may be policies, or they may be arguments about policies. They may be named in the question, or you may be asked to select your own. Whatever the case, you need to consider the two against each other; at all costs avoid a description of the two separately. ‘Compare and contrast’ (or ‘compare’ by itself) involves finding similarities and differences between items, as do ‘how similar were’ and and ‘how different were’.

pp. 135, 182, 190, 221, 337

Argument and support Since most essays involve an attempt to solve a problem, the solution should be clearly presented and well supported. The structure should be argument backed up by factual examples. This is much more effective than factual narrative followed by deduction. For most types of question you should argue then support; do not narrate then deduce. Appropriate essay technique

Inappropriate essay technique

Argument Factual detail supporting the argument

Narrative Argument deducted from narrative

SERIES INTRODUCTION • xiii

To become accustomed to writing in this way it can be helpful to outline or highlight argument in red and factual detail supporting the argument in blue; there will, of course, be some overlapping between the two. For each issue covered in the essay the red should come before the blue.

Stages in the essay Stages

Appropriate development

Introduction

Mostly argument: considering the meaning of the question and offering an outline answer without detail or possibly factual, stating the basic premise of the question.

Each subsequent paragraph

A part of or stage in the argument. The first sentence of each paragraph is based on argument. The rest consists of argument supported by factual detail. It should not normally be factual detail followed by deduction.

Conclusion

Need not repeat the arguments already provided, but may pull together any threads. The final sentence should be a generalisation. Never write ‘unfinished’.

The introductory paragraph is vital since it will usually provide the direction for the rest of the essay; it will also provide the initial impression for the person reading or marking it. It should be a single paragraph and of immediate relevance to the question rather than leading gradually to the point. It should be largely argument, attempting to consider all the key words and concepts in the question and to provide a brief outline answer to it. This can then be developed in the rest of the essay. All this means that the introductory paragraph can and should be quite short. The main section of the essay (about 90 per cent) will consist of several paragraphs that will develop the issues raised in the introduction. Ideally, each paragraph should start with a stage in the argument, with the rest of the paragraph comprising a combination of the argument in more detail and relevant factual support. Paragraphs therefore need to be seen as units within the answer. The reason for starting another paragraph is usually to move on to another unit. A sequence of very short paragraphs usually shows a disjointed argument, and a complete absence of paragraphs makes it difficult to follow the stages in the argument at all. It is important to have some sort of conclusion and not to stop suddenly. This should round the essay off by pulling threads together and giving a final assessment in any ‘to what extent?’ essays. It might also be a fitting place for a quotation, especially one which complements or contradicts any quotation included in the question. Never write ‘unfinished’; in the event of mistiming, use a rounding off sentence rather than a full conclusion.

xiv • SERIES INTRODUCTION

The different styles of essay question The examining boards provide differing essay styles, which are reflected in the various chapters. Board

Style of essay question, choice and time allowed

Example of style of essay question

OCR

One-part essay question in 45-minutes, testing all essay skills. (90)

How did the government respond to the opposition of groups which were against British participation in the Great War? (90)

AQA

Two-part essay question, sometimes prefaced with a brief quotation, in 60 minutes, testing:

(a)

(a) Contextual knowledge (3) (b) Background knowledge (7) (c) Interpretation, discussion (15) Edexel

Two-part essay in 60 minutes, testing: (a) Knowledge of issues. (30) (b) Causation. (60)

What changes were made to land laws in Ireland between 1870 and 1903 (15) (b) Do you agree with the view that Land Reform did more to address the problems of Ireland than Home Rule Bills? (15)

(a)

Why was South Africa important to Britain? (30) (b) How mistaken were Britain’s policies in relation to the Boers? (60)

Part 3: Source analysis Questions are set on primary sources, secondary sources or both. There are different styles of source-based questions (see p. xvi). Despite contrasts in wording, however, they do have certain common features (see below). Type of question

Examples of question structure

General advice on the answer

The source used for information and inference

• What can you learn from this Source about . . .? • What evidence is there in Source 1 to suggest that . . .?

Identify implications as well as information. This means inferring, not describing.

The source used as a stimulus for further knowledge. Usually this means explaining a particular sentence or phrase in the

• Using Source A and your own knowledge, explain the meaning of ‘. . .’ [a phrase in quotation marks]. • Using your own knowledge, explain briefly, why ‘. . .’

Identify precisely what is required and confine the use of ‘your own knowledge’ to explain the words in the quotation marks. This will, however, need accurate detail rather than vague generalisation.

SERIES INTRODUCTION • xv source: this will involve further material outside the source.

[an event or development in quotation marks].

Questions on a source’s ‘usefulness’ and ‘reliability’.

• How useful is Source A about . . . ? • How reliable is Source A about . . .? • How useful are these Sources to the historian studying . . . ?

For usefulness distinguish between internal criteria (i.e. content) and external criteria (i.e. the type of source). Reliability can also be assessed by referring to whether the content is accurate and the circumstances in which the source was produced. A source may be unreliable but still useful.

Questions asking for comparisons between sources. These may concern similarities, or differences, or both. They may involve an explanation of the reasons for similarities or differences.

• Compare . . . according to Sources A and B. • How would you explain the differences? • What evidence in Source 1 supports the view in Source 5 that . . . ? • Explain how the judgement in Source A challenges the judgement in Source C that ...

‘Compare’ or ‘compare and contrast’ mean finding similarities and differences. These may involve details or general arguments. In either case precise references are needed, using brief quotations from the sources. Reasons for differences in the content of sources usually involve a comment on the differences in the type of source.

Questions which provide a viewpoint that needs to be tested against the sources and against additional knowledge beyond the sources.

• Use Sources A to D, and your own knowledge, to explain whether the view that ‘. . .’ is accurate. • Study Sources A, B and C and use your own knowledge. How important . . . • Refer to Sources A, B and C and use your own knowledge. Explain . . . • Do you agree that ‘. . .’ Explain your answer, using the sources and your own knowledge.

The answer needs two dimensions. • The content and your own knowledge of the sources should be ‘used’ to test the viewpoint in the question. At the same time, the reliability of this content should be briefly assessed: does the source apparently support . . . and does it really support . . .? • ‘Own knowledge’ should have the same amount of time and space as the ‘use of sources’ and should include material beyond the sources.

xvi • SERIES INTRODUCTION

As with the essays, the Boards have different styles of questions on sources, even though they are testing very much the same skills. Board

Style of source-based questions and time allowed

Example of style of source-based question

OCR

4 primary sources, 3 questions in 60 minutes (a) Explanation of context of an issue mentioned in a source. (20) (b) Comparison between sources. (40) (c) Testing a viewpoint against all the sources and own knowledge.(60)

(a)

AQA

1 primary source, 2 secondary (a) Study Source A. sources; 3 questions in 45 minutes. Using your own knowledge, explain (a) Explanation of context of an briefly . . . (3) issue mentioned in a source. (3) (b) Study sources B and C. (b) Comparison between sources. (7) With reference to your own knowledge, (c) Explanation of importance of explain how the judgement on . . . issue ‘in the relation to other expressed in Source C, challenges the matters’; use of sources and judgement put forward in Source B. (7) own knowledge. (15) (c) Refer to Sources A, B and C and use your own knowledge. Explain the importance, in relation to other factors, of . . . (15) Total (25)

Edexcel

4 primary sources, 1 secondary (a) source; 5 questions in 90 minutes (a) Explanation of context of an issue in the source. (3) (b) (b) Use of own knowledge to describe or explain an issue related to the sources. (5) (c) (c) Comments on usefulness of sources for the historian studying . . . (5) (d) (d) Comparison between sources. (5) (e) Comments on a viewpoint, using 2 specified sources and (e) own knowledge. (12)

Study Source A. From this source, and from your own knowledge, explain . . . (20) (b) Study Sources B and C. Compare . . . according to Sources B and C and explain the difference. (40) (c) Use all the Sources. Use all the sources and your knowledge to explain . . . (60) Total (120)

Study Source 1. What does this source reveal about . . .? (3) Use your own knowledge. Use your own knowledge to explain . . . (5) Study Sources 2, and 3. How far does Source 3 support the statement in Source 2 that . . . (5) Study Sources 4 and 5. Compare the value of these two sources to the historian studying . . . (5) Study Sources 1 and 5 and use your own knowledge. Do you agree that . . .? Explain your answer, using these two sources and your own knowledge. (12) Total (30)

SERIES INTRODUCTION • xvii

Only limited use of visual sources is made by the Boards. But the historian can learn as much from pictures as from any other source. You should use the various illustrations in this book to develop your skills of observation and deduction, perhaps by discussing what can be learned from each of the pictures with members of your group, or by composing questions about each for fellow students to answer.

Combined essay and source-based questions Two Boards have a combination of essay questions and one source. Here the source is intended as a stimulus for the essays. Board

Style of essay and source question, and time allowed

Example of style of essay and source question

AQA

Brief quotation from a secondary source followed by three-part essay question in 60 minutes, testing: (a) Contextual knowledge. (3) (b) Background knowledge. (7) (c) Interpretation, discussion. (15)

‘The suffragette movement before the war had set as its objective the same limited franchise for some women as was enjoyed by some men. The women’s movement from 1915 onwards was a more unified movement than it had ever been previously. Indeed many leading women who had actively opposed women’s suffrage before the war found it impossible to maintain their opposition.’ (a) Using the source and your knowledge, comment on ‘limited franchise’ in the context of suffragettes’ demands before 1914. (3) (b) Explain the reasons why only some women were granted the vote for Parliament at the end of the First World War. (7) (c) ‘During the First World War there were extensive changes in the roles of women in Britain.’ Explain why and in what ways this was so. (15) Total (25)

Edexcel

1 or 2 primary sources, followed by three-part essay question in 60 minutes, testing: (a) Contextual knowledge. (5) (b) Background knowledge. (7) (c) Interpretation discussion (18)

(a) Study Source A. How does Source A help to explain why the Chartist petition of 1848 failed? (5) (b) Use your own knowledge To what extent had the aims of the Chartists been met by the end of the nineteenth century? (7)

xviii • SERIES INTRODUCTION (c) Use your own knowledge. Which groups were demanding further parliamentary reform in the years up to 1867 and to what extent were they satisfied by the Reform Act passed in that year? (18) Total (30)

How does this book combine the different approaches of the Boards to essays and source questions? The use by the Boards of different styles is an opportunity to see common objectives from slightly different angles. It is very likely that an approach used by a Board you are not following will clarify at least one approach used by the Board that you are. At the very least, you will learn a great deal about what essay and source skills mean by comparing the ways in which they are approached. This is because you will be doing the most important thing you can do: you will be thinking about what the skills actually mean. This book attempts to use all the approaches of the Boards in a way in which they relate to each other and reinforce each other. At the same time, it intends to give precise examples of how the questions of specific Boards can best be approached.

Part 4: Historical Skills History is a diverse subject with wide-ranging skills. There is also considerable emphasis on general academic skills within the context of the sixth form. The two can be closely connected and the purpose of Part 4 of each chapter is to suggest how specific skills can be developed both within the History course and with a close connection to more general sixth-form courses. The intention is to enhance techniques already developed in essay-writing and source-analysis – but also to go beyond them in anticipating the needs of students of higher education. The focus of Part 4 of the various chapters is summarised below. Each chapter considers the development of a different skill. The historical context may not be directly relevant to what you are studying, but the skill will be transferable to the area that is. This has the added benefit of making you think about the process of transferring ideas from one context to another and, in the process changing and refining them. This, as much as anything else, is what History is about.

SERIES INTRODUCTION • xix Type of skill

Where it is covered

1. Essay – writing

Series Introduction, Part 2 and Chapters 2–8, Part 2

2. Source – analysis

Series Introduction, Part 3 and Chapters 2–8, Part 3

3. Effective note-taking

Chapter 4, Part 4 (page 153); Chapter 8, Part 4, (pages 355–6)

4. Oral contributions

Chapters 3, 5 and 7, Part 4 (pages 106, 204–5, 301–2)

5. Numerical skills in history

Chapter 3, Part 4 (page 107)

6. Research skills: coursework or individual study

Chapters 2, 5 and 7, Part 4 (pages 54–7, 205–6, 301–2)

7. Concentration and learning skills

Chapter 8, Part 4 (pages 355–6)

8. SWOT Analysis

Chapter 6, Part 4 (pages 251–2)

9. Anticipating the skills required for A2

Chapter 9: Conclusion, Part 2 (pages 359–65)

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

An Introduction to the Period

Introduction This is a period of dramatic changes for the British people. Although less violent than the previous half century, these changes were perceptible in every aspect of life, and of the government of Britain and the conduct of foreign and imperial policy.

The monarchy The status of the monarchy is an example of these changes, and its survival, in a period which saw a great deal of constitutional change and republican agitation across the whole of Europe, is a measure of the underlying conservatism and stability of the British system. After the difficulties and uncertainties of the dynasty at the start of the century, by 1846, the monarchy appeared to have settled into a period of stability. Victoria had been very young (18 years and 1 month old) at her accession, and her errors of judgement had affected the stability of government ministries. Her marriage in January 1840, to her cousin Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, marked the start of a settled domesticity and dutiful attention to the needs of the country. The queen’s excessive allegiance to the Liberals was moderated, under the influence of her husband, although her dislike of the chilly Peel (of whom it was said, ‘his smile is like the silver plate on a coffin’) was eventually reincarnated in her antipathy to Gladstone (‘he addresses me as if I were a public meeting’), and her disputes with the flamboyant Palmerston confirmed that the monarchy was still able to ‘make and break’ ministers, but never again did the monarch so openly favour one side as she had in the days of Lord Melbourne. In 1861, disaster struck the royal family. Albert contracted typhoid, thanks to the primitive plumbing and inadequate cleanliness of Windsor Castle, and he died on 14 December. The queen, aged 42 and after 21 years of marriage, was left a widow and inconsolable. She withdrew into a period of reclusive mourning, so prolonged that questions began to be asked about the function and essence of the British monarchy. She did not appear in public even once until June 1864, refusing to preside at the State Opening of Parliament, or to greet foreign dignitaries. Her continued absence from public life did not prevent her from asking parliament for money, for instance on the occasion of the Princess Royal’s wedding to the Prussian heir. The press was hostile; republicanism began to be openly discussed amongst left-wing intellectuals. A leaflet entitled ‘What does she do with it?’ was published in 1871, speculating about the money she so regularly received. The mood began to change, however, when the Prince of Wales first fell ill, with the same typhoid as had killed his father, and then recovered. When the queen and he appeared at the Thanksgiving ceremony at St Paul’s Cathedral, she was greeted with affectionate enthusiasm. Disraeli’s tactful handling of the queen, together with his presentation of the title Empress of India in 1876, began the recovery, but it took further determined efforts by the politicians, centring on the Gold and Diamond Jubilees of 1887 and 1897, to restore the queen to anything approaching the position in the nation’s affections which she had enjoyed in the 1850s. The renewed popularity was sufficient to sustain the monarchy through the brief reign (1901–10) of the louche Edward VII, who had filled his overlong period of waiting – he was almost 60 years old when Victoria died – with dissolute behaviour. Once on the throne, however, he embraced his duties with a flamboyant enthusiasm which delighted the people, and his wife, Alexandra of Denmark, was much loved,

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PERIOD • 3

not least for her real interest in and support for improvements in hospitals and medical care in the armed forces. With the accession of George V, the British monarchy entered a further period of dutiful stability, which lasted until, and – thanks to a rigid control of the press and media – beyond the brief crisis of the abdication of 1936.

The parliamentary system in the nineteenth century Although the constitution by which Britain is governed is very much the same in the twenty-first century as it was in the nineteenth, there were, in practice, differences in the way the system operated which need to be borne in mind, particularly when considering changes in ministries. The key points of difference are these: • •

• •

•

•

•

Elections were required every seven years (changing to the modern five-year terms in 1911). Party allegiance was less strong, and factions within parties formed and expressed themselves with more freedom than is possible with modern party ‘machines’, as signalled by the defection of numbers of Peelite Conservatives to join the Liberals in the 1840s and by the formation of the Unionist group in the 1890s which so seriously weakened the Liberals and strengthened the Conservatives. The government was formed by someone who could command a majority in the House of Commons. If a government lost a vote in the House of Commons, the first step was to discover whether those who had voted against were able to muster enough votes to form a government. If they could, then they would do so and possibly, though not necessarily, hold an election to obtain the approval of the electorate. Thus changes in ministry, and in ruling party, may precede, rather than following, a general election. If the opposing group was not able to ‘command a majority’, it was also possible for the grouping which had lost the vote to continue in government, without the measure over which they had been defeated. Only if they, too, failed to do so would the Commons defeat lead directly to a general election. Any Member of Parliament who was appointed as a minister had to submit himself to a byelection to ascertain whether his constituents approved of his promotion. This protocol lasted until, during the years of the First World War, ministers were appointed without this formality, and it then fell into disuse. The monarch therefore had more influence than is the case today, since discussions might be held with several leading politicians in an attempt to find one who could form a government without the disruption and cost of a general election.

At the same time, the parliamentary methods with which we are familiar began to emerge in the later part of the nineteenth century. In 1881, the Speaker for the first time ordered the end of a debate, and from 1887 onwards, the guillotine was formally introduced: that is, a resolution could be taken to end the debate. The process of control of the Commons by the government was further extended during the debate on the 1902 Education Act, when a timetable resolution fixed the duration of discussion at each stage of the Bill’s passage. By 1900, too, questions to ministers were becoming a normal part of the business of the Commons.

4 • INTRODUCTION

As the franchise extended, so did the need for a stronger party structure, and a larger amount of money to spend at elections. The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883 was one outcome of the ever-intensifying search for party funds, but the acceptance of donations also became far more common; then, in some cases, for example, in Gladstone’s second ministry, donations were linked to rewards in the Honours Lists.

Government spending At the start of this period, income tax was regarded as an emergency and temporary measure, and all governments attempted to keep spending and therefore taxation as low as possible. The pressures of social and political reform, however, meant that the latter part of the nineteenth century saw an extraordinary increase in peacetime government expenditure and revenue. By 1890, regular annual expenditure had reached the level of the war years before 1815:

Expenditure Income tax & property tax revenue Death Duties revenue Customs and Excise revenue Stamp Duty revenue

1880 £80 million £9 million £6 million £45 million £4 million

1900 Almost £200 million £18 million £18 million £60 million £8.5 million

By 1900, income tax stood at 1s 3d in the pound, that is 0.625 per cent or, in modern terms, just over one half penny in the pound. At the same time, the National Debt had reached £700 million.

Politics and ministries In political terms, the departure of Robert Peel was the outward sign that links with the past were ending and that in the future economic and social issues were more likely to determine political groupings than family and traditional ties. True, the new Conservative Party would continue to be dominated by ‘old’ Tory families, but its increasing eclecticism would be marked by its eventual adoption as leader of the flamboyant Benjamin Disraeli. At the same time, the Liberals, with their new recruits from amongst the Free Trade Conservatives, became associated with antiProtection policies which endured until the First World War. While initially members of the aristocracy continued to head ministries, with Lords Palmerston, Aberdeen, Derby and Russell passing the Premiership among them, the House of Commons was becoming increasingly important, and from 1868 onwards, aristocratic prime ministers became the exception rather than the rule; after the retirement of the Marquis of Salisbury in 1902, prime ministers were always to sit in the House of Commons. Chapters 2, 5, 7 and 8 offer discussion and analysis of the work of the different ministries in the period.

Foreign policy An important part of every ministry’s work was the conduct of foreign and imperial policy. By 1846, the ‘Concert of Europe’, so optimistically established at the end of the French wars, had

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PERIOD • 5

ceased to function, but Britain pursued a policy of avoiding involvement in European problems while securing her growing Empire. Imperial policy drove foreign policy: the need to protect the route to India ensured that Turkey was supported and Russia resisted. Interests in Africa meant that the historic hostility with France was not overcome until the start of the twentieth century. France and Britain together dealt with the threat of Russian expansion in the 1850s, but avoiding war was an economic and public opinion imperative. Issues of foreign policy are included in the chapters which consider the success and failures of each ministry, with the exception of the most intractable problem of British imperial possessions.

Ireland The questions asked by Britain’s assumption of direct rule in Ireland (through the Act of Union of 1801) continued to engage politicians of both parties and to affect people throughout this period. A kind of uneasy peace, which had been strengthened by the eventual political emancipation of Roman Catholics, was ended by the famine of 1845–6, and Ireland became central to Westminster politics throughout the period covered by this book, splitting parties and damaging careers. Repeated attempts to deal with the economic, social and religious grievances of the Irish failed to appease Ireland. The first two attempts to provide the kind of self-government which we know as ‘devolution’ and which was enjoyed by the Dominions such as New Zealand and Canada were thwarted at Westminster. The Third Home Rule Bill became law, but only after Ireland had been partitioned, leaving a legacy which continues to cause political problems into the twentyfirst century. Because events in and concerning Ireland have a continuity and a momentum of their own, a separate chapter, Chapter 6, has been allotted to Ireland.

Economic and transport developments The economic and technical developments of the Industrial Revolution accelerated during the nineteenth century. While the canals continued to play a significant role in the nation’s transport until the twentieth century, the revolution of the railways transformed not only industry, but also many aspects of society. These changes were matched by new techniques in coal mining, heavy industry and textile production. Britain’s exports of industrial products reached across the world, and the technologies of modern transport and mass production were exported too. Only towards the end of the nineteenth century was Britain’s dominance as the ‘workshop of the world’ seriously challenged. These far-reaching changes and the effect they had on Britain and the Empire are the subjects of Chapter 3.

Social and public health reforms The urbanisation and social dislocation, which resulted from the industrial changes of the nineteenth century, led to problems which governments felt compelled to address through legislation. The social and public health reforms begun so tentatively in the 1820s and 1830s flowed in a steady and ever-increasing stream through the period covered by this book. Although historians have detected differences in emphasis between the reforming policies of the Liberals and the

6 • INTRODUCTION

Conservatives, the continuities are more marked than the differing party political attitudes, and therefore the regulation and organisation of public health and social welfare are brought together in Chapter 4. By the end of the period, social welfare reforms and public health regulation had created a Britain recognisable to the modern student, with free education, controls in place over housing and social infrastructure, and the beginnings of adequate support for those unable to support themselves. While the Great War of 1914–18 is often seen as a watershed in both policies and politics, we can see that in many ways it merely interrupted the developments which were well under way before the war began and were resumed in the years after the Peace of Versailles. The British Empire grew, and arguments about defence spending which had characterised the pre-war years were renewed. The Labour Party was not able immediately to eclipse the Liberals, and changes in the franchise again, as so often before, led to uncertainties within all the political parties. Governments recognised as axiomatic the need to spend the taxpayer’s money on social and economic improvements and to control aspects of life which, in the 1840s, had been almost entirely the business of private individuals. The 70 years which are the subject of this book fixed the pattern for the shape of modern Britain.

Chapter 2

At Home and Abroad, 1846–68

8 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

This chapter will consider the many changes in government between the fall of Robert Peel and the appointment of William Gladstone as prime minister for the first time. The division in the Conservative Party brought about by Peel’s insistence on free trade meant that during these two decades Britain was ruled by the Liberals almost without a break. At the same time, British foreign policy, dominated by Palmerston, became both interventionist and more openly imperial than in previous years.

Historical background

The fall of Robert Peel Changing ministries The queen and her influence Prince Albert and the Great Exhibition The end of Chartism Religious issues Parliamentary reform Spain and France 1846–8 Palmerston and the 1848 revolutions ‘Gunboat’ diplomacy Don Pacifico, 1850 The Arrow incident 1856 The Crimean War 1854–6 The Indian ‘mutiny’ 1857 The Orsini plot and the Conspiracy to Murder Bill 1858 Schleswig-Holstein and Prussia Relationships with the USA

Essays

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Changes in ministry The demand for electoral reform The Chartists Trade unionism The royal family The Crimean war The Empire and the Indian ‘mutiny’ Palmerston and foreign policy Britain and Europe

Sources 1. 2.

Parliamentary reform: demand and provision The conduct of foreign affairs

Historical skills 1. 2.

Research and discussion about the royal family Europe between 1846 and 1868

AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68 • 9

Chronology 1846 1848 1850 1851 1851 1851 1852

1854 1855 1855 1856 1857 1857 1858 1858 1858 1858 1859 1861 1861 1865 1866 1866 1867

Peel resigned, replaced by Lord John Russell and the Whigs Chartist demonstration The Don Pacifico Affair The Great Exhibition Ecclesiastical Titles Act Establishment of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers Three changes of ministry: Russell was replaced by Lord Stanley, the earl of Derby; then Russell became prime minister again and finally Lord Aberdeen The Crimean War began Lord Palmerston became prime minister First government subsidy to Hansard for the reports of Parliamentary business The Arrow incident Prince Albert was made prince consort Indian ‘mutiny’ The ‘Government of India’ Act The ‘Conspiracy to Murder’ Bill Lord Derby became prime minister Abolition of property qualifications for MPs Lord Palmerston became prime minister The Trent incident Death of Prince Albert Lord John Russell became prime minister Lord Derby became prime minister Parliamentary Oath altered to accommodate non-Christians Parliamentary Reform Act

10 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

Part 1: Historical background 1 – the ministries of 1846–68 The fall of Robert Peel The period under consideration in this book begins effectively with Robert Peel’s proposals for increased free trade in the budget of 1846. He saw this as an extension of his earlier removal of tariffs on such items as sugar and other food commodities, soap and timber. But this could not disguise that the Corn Law was the main target of reform: landowners were promised compensation in the form of cheaper animal feedstuffs and access to low-interest loans for farm improvements. Grants-in-aid from the centre would reduce the burden of the rates on local land. But none of this was sufficiently convincing, as various by-elections in the months before had suggested. Although the Corn Bill went through the Commons, thanks to support from the opposition Whigs, there was no reason for the Whigs to support Peel’s Irish Coercion Act, designed to strengthen powers for peace maintenance in Ireland, and enough of his own party voted against him to ensure his fall. His resignation put the Whigs in power, although they were unable to obtain a clear majority in the election of 1851 and relied on the Peelites who were returned to maintain their position. Peel’s death in 1850 was marked by a spate of commemorative statues, public collections and admiring obituaries; but his most significant achievement may have been to put Britain so firmly on the road to free trade that attempts to return to protectionism divided his party and lost elections 60 years later.

Changing ministries Lord John Russell became prime minister and, until 1852, presided over a range of social reforms described in Chapter 3. Much of this was made possible by the new mechanism of a ‘Clauses’ Act, which made possible the addition of further measures on a particular topic by adding clauses to existing acts. In many fields, the reforms of the 1830s and of Peel’s government were adapted and adjusted without major new initiatives. New boroughs were established in industrial areas, for example Wolverhampton in 1848 and South Shields in 1850, with the increase in rates being seen as a reasonable price to pay for the enhanced status and added local control. The Russell government followed Peel’s lead in supplying grants-in-aid for expensive policies which would otherwise place an unacceptable burden on the ratepayers. It is the foreign policy of this ministry which received and receives the most attention, thanks to the flamboyant character and policies of the foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston. Russell was briefly out of office in 1851, when he was defeated in an attempt to introduce a further parliamentary reform act; but the Conservative Lord Stanley, summoned by the queen, declared that he would be unable to form a government and so Russell returned for a few more months, before being defeated over a militia bill. This time Lord Stanley (by now the earl of Derby) formed a government, with Disraeli leading in the Commons. The lack of a majority sent the Conservatives to the country in the general election of 1852, but they failed to gain enough seats to be secure and were defeated over the budget in December 1852. Lord Aberdeen, a Peelite, managed to bring together a group of Whigs, radicals and other free traders, including Lord John Russell, and formed a government, which was assured of a majority

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 – THE MINISTRIES OF 1846–68 • 11 Figure 2.1 John Russell, 1st earl Russell (1792–1878), prime minister. Painting by Sir Francis Grant

in the Commons elected in 1852. There seemed to be no reason why his ministry should not last a full seven years and the budget of 1853, the work of Gladstone as chancellor of the exchequer, was a useful piece of legislation. The apparently stable Ministry was forced out in 1855 by the terrible news from the war front of the Crimea. Aberdeen resigned and the queen was compelled, after trying both Derby and Russell, to send for Palmerston. Foreign matters again threatened the Palmerston ministry in March 1857 with Parliamentary disapproval of the bombardment of Canton in China. Defeated in the Commons, Palmerston was able to appeal to a general election, rather than resigning straight away, and his main opponents, including the ageing radicals Cobden and Bright, lost their seats, although Bright returned to Parliament after a convenient by-election. Palmerston was, however, forced to resign after the defeat of his Conspiracy to Murder Bill, and so Lord Derby formed a ministry. It was this Conservative ministry which removed the property qualification for MPs and which ended the need for a specifically Christian oath for new MPs. But when they attempted a more general Parliamentary Reform Bill, Derby was forced to call a general election in May 1859, and after the new Commons met, enough groups hostile to Derby were brought together for Palmerston again to become prime minister. Palmerston was able to woo various Peelites: although Cobden refused to sit in his ministry, Gladstone became chancellor of the exchequer. Gladstone’s aim was to reduce spending and therefore taxation and, while naval spending was deemed essential, he was able to cut expenditure elsewhere and thus to end the tax on paper which had for many years raised the prices of all publications. He followed this by reducing the few remaining tariffs to a level at which they had little impact on trade. The ministry also produced some useful social legislation, much of it tidying up earlier Acts. In its unspectacular way, it became the first ministry for some time to last an entire Parliament, and the election was called in 1865 because seven years had passed since the last. Palmerston, by then over 80 years old, gained a few more seats and his ministry was only ended by his death three months after the election. He was replaced by Lord John Russell, himself in his seventies. Having been in the ministry which had passed the first Parliamentary Reform Act, he was eager to be the man who achieved further reform. Many felt, however, that there was no mandate for reform, since the election had been fought with Palmerston as leader and he had not expressed any interest in parliamentary reform. Russell was therefore forced to resign and, in 1866, Lord Derby for the third time formed a minority government.

12 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

The queen and her influence The queen’s involvement in politics was considerable. She was conscientious in reading and commenting on government papers, and on several occasions tried to influence the choice of prime minister. Her personal feelings affected events: her dislike of Palmerston’s high-handed ways helped to secure his dismissal in 1851. This was the period during which she was as much a wife and mother as a head of state. Prince Albert’s influence on the queen was a calming and mature one. He encouraged her to purchase, with her own money, Osborne House on the Isle of Wight as a summer holiday home ready in 1846, and Balmoral Castle was rebuilt during the 1850s. Few improvements were made to Windsor Castle, however and, as Cecil Woodham Smith wrote, ‘beneath the splendour, Windsor Castle was more dangerous than a jungle.’1

Prince Albert and the Great Exhibition Albert’s public position was much less secure. He was mistrusted to an extraordinary degree. When, in January 1847, he went to the House of Commons to hear the debate on the Corn Laws, there was an outcry and Albert never again visited the Commons. The basis of the indignation was that the monarch should not visit the Commons; but at the same time as objecting to Albert’s presence, Parliament declined to recognise him as anything other than a private person, refusing him a title for many years. Prince Albert’s greatest moment was the Great Exhibition of 1851. Initially greeted with serious hostility, the idea of a world-class showcase for Britain’s achievements soon became popular. Finding a site had been difficult, with The Times objecting ‘By a stroke of the pen, our pleasant park, nearly the only place where Londoners can get a breath of fresh air, is to be turned into something between Wolverhampton and Greenwich Fair . . . The project looks . . . like insanity.’2 Paxton’s design for what the magazine Punch dubbed a ‘Crystal Palace’ soon became popular, however, and the Exhibition was visited by over 6 million visitors in one year. (We may compare this number with the visitor count at any modern attraction.) The profits were used to establish the national museums of South Kensington, while the Crystal Palace was eventually re-sited in south London at Sydenham. Even this great success could not make Albert popular with the xenophobic British, although he was finally named Prince Consort in 1857. His death in 1861, however, came near to undoing all the good he had achieved for the monarchy, since the queen’s withdrawal into deep mourning weakened her position and popularity for several decades.

The end of Chartism The threatened Chartist action of 1848 revealed that the authorities were nervous of the power of the mob. Substantial preparations were made to maintain public order, with a large military and police presence in London. In the event, the demonstration passed off peacefully, and the petition itself, safely delivered to Parliament, was neutralised by the select committee which demonstrated a number of forged and repeated signatures and a miscounting of the total. While ridicule marked the end of the campaign, the Chartists effectively gained most of their ‘six points’ within the period of this book. Indeed they had the Conservatives to thank for achieving the first:

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 – THE MINISTRIES OF 1846–68 • 13 Figure 2.2 George Hamilton Gordon, 4th earl of Aberdeen (1784–1860), prime minister. Painting by John Partridge

the abolition of property qualifications for MPs in 1858. Secret ballot was to follow in Gladstone’s ministries, as were moves towards equal electoral districts, although payment of MPs and universal adult suffrage waited until the twentieth century. It may nevertheless be considered remarkable that there was no serious revolution in England, given the poverty, misery and inequality which existed alongside the comfortable lives of the middle and upper classes. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, arriving in Britain in 1849, soon became convinced that revolution was bound to come.

Religious issues The Established Church of England in this period felt threatened by the growing strength of the Catholic Church in Britain. The actual number of Catholics was increasing with Irish immigration, and Disraeli had not been alone in opposing Peel’s plan to increase the grant to the Catholic training college at Maynooth. His view of the British Constitution and its established church meant that the taxpayer should not be paying to train Catholic priests; over 1.25 million people signed petitions against the grant, so we may say that Disraeli was in tune with public opinion. Further anxiety was aroused by the intellectual threat of the Oxford Movement. This was led by a group of clergymen within the Church of England who favoured more ritual and beauty in the church’s services, as well as closer links with the Roman Catholic Church. Bishops like Pusey recommended practices such as confession and bowing to the altar, but the greatest shock had been Bishop John Henry Newman’s actual conversion to Catholicism in 1845. When, in 1850, Pope Pius IX restored a Catholic diocesan system and appointed the Catholic scholar Nicholas Wiseman not merely as archbishop of Westminster, but also as cardinal, there was a great deal of bigoted outcry in some of the newspapers. The Ecclesiastical Titles Act of July 1851 was Russell’s own reaction to what was known in the popular press as ‘papal aggression’. The Act made it a crime to claim a territorial title in Britain for any religion save the Established Church and confiscated for the Crown any property willed to people claiming such illegal titles. It was passed with a massive majority (438–95) demonstrating how far Britain was from being a truly ‘Liberal’ country. It was, however,

14 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68 Figure 2.3 Henry Temple, 3rd viscount Palmerston (1784–1865), prime minister. Painting by John Jabez Edwin Mayall

never enforced, since it would have made Ireland ungovernable, and was eventually repealed in 1871. On the other hand, Disraeli was one of several MPs who argued passionately for the repeal of laws which impeded the social and political progress of Jews. The election of Lionel de Rothschild in 1847 had to be repeated in five more by-elections before he was permitted to take the parliamentary oath omitting the words ‘on the true faith of a Christian’. The parliamentary oath itself, however, was finally changed by an act of Parliament in 1866.

Parliamentary reform The system established by the Great Reform Act of 1832 was increasingly recognised as inadequate to the changing face of Britain. During the 1850s and 1860s, international developments as well as developments at home restored the issue of political rights to the public eye. Not only were the United States of America being torn apart over issues of local against central authority, as well as the question of personal liberty, but also the struggle for Italian Unification was raising constitutional issues; and with the departure of Palmerston, there was less charisma to dazzle the public into indifference. When Russell’s Liberal government fell over the issue, the Conservatives, and particularly Disraeli, felt that to introduce a franchise bill of their own might be politically advantageous. Disraeli, accused of ‘stealing the Liberals’ clothes’, was the key figure in steering through the bill which finally became the 1867 Second Parliamentary Reform Act. Initially the bill was based around a series of ‘fancy franchises’, designed to select only respectable and responsible groups to join the active political nation. Debates over days and weeks attempted to distinguish which types and amounts of property should qualify for the vote and which should not but, in the end, Disraeli himself cut through the discussion with a recommendation which dealt with the boroughs, rather than the whole electorate. Disraeli may have hoped that the new voters would, in gratitude, become Conservative supporters but, more importantly, his aim was to protect the county franchise from change, since it was in the counties that most Conservative voters lived. The redistribution element of the bill ensured that the counties were no longer affected by large towns spreading into them. Only in coal mining areas did industrial workers now live and vote in the shires.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2 – FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1846–68 • 15 Summary of the Act of 1867 Towns Counties

• • • • •

Redistribution

• • • • • •

Total electorate

•

All male householders of 12 months or more residence £10.00 Lodgers 40/- Freeholders (i.e. owners of property which would be worth £2 a year if rented out) £5.00 leaseholders (that is, whose leases were worth £5 per year) £12.00 ratepayers (that is, who occupied property valued for local taxes – rates – at £12.00 per year) 45 seats were taken from small boroughs, which now became single member boroughs 7 towns lost both their seats and therefore became part of the county constituency 25 new county seats and 20 new boroughs were established 6 boroughs were given additional seats, though three member elections were recognised as being unwieldy 1 seat was given to London University There was no redistribution in Ireland which, because of the drop in its population, was therefore over-presented in Parliament Rose by over one million to 2.5 million, probably one in three adult men

The act was recognised by all but the most intransigent as merely a stage: the counties would have, in due course, to be reformed as well. A secret ballot act was bound to follow. John Stuart Mill mentioned in Parliament that the question of enfranchising women should now become a serious issue; but he was ignored. In the country at large, however, women began to question why, if all working men should vote, the views of working women should be ignored.

Part 1: Historical background 2 – foreign affairs 1846–68 This period was dominated by Palmerston’s flamboyant approach, which may give the impression that Britain was extremely active in foreign policy. It is, however, important to bear in mind Britain’s low defence budget. At a time when government spending as a whole was less than 10 per cent of gross national product (GNP), expenditure on Britain’s armed forces never amounted to more than 3 per cent. Thus despite its predominant economic status, Britain was far weaker than any other major power in military terms. There was no conscription and only a small army. What spending there was concentrated on the navy and the Empire, leaving Britain with little flexibility in confronting European issues. It is not surprising that in 1852, Disraeli, as chancellor of the exchequer, wrote to a colleague that ‘these wretched colonies . . . are a millstone round our necks.’3

Spain and France 1846–8 Spain in 1846 was ruled by the young Queen Isabella, whose unmarried status excited much of Europe. Isabella’s husband would control the significant remnants of Spain’s once great Empire

16 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

and, in terms of the ‘balance of power’, the best solution was for her to marry one of her Bourbon cousins, but there were other candidates: the older son of the Orleanist king of France, or a member of the Coburg family. Despite Palmerston’s attempts to control the situation, in the event, Guizot, chief adviser to Louis Philippe of France, ensured that both the queen and her younger sister married French princes. Palmerston’s indignation guaranteed that relationships with France remained unfriendly, and his early recognition of the 1848 revolution in France may have been a retaliation to this humiliation. Certainly his recognition of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte’s accession to power in 1851 was a great deal more rapid than Queen Victoria wanted or approved. In 1847, Britain assisted the queen of Portugal by blockading Oporto, where rebels against Queen Maria had established a base, but this did not restore friendship with France. Palmerston had not joined France in protesting against Austrian occupation of the Polish free city of Cracow, and he was able to assist the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland while France joined Metternich in supporting the Sonderbund of Catholic Cantons. It was as a result of Palmerston’s delaying tactics that the Federal system in Switzerland was reformed in December 1847.

Palmerston and the 1848 revolutions Palmerston’s responses to the 1848 revolutions were entirely decided by the interests of Britain. As well as recognising President Louis Napoleon Bonaparte promptly in France, he failed to support Piedmont in north Italy and in the south his support for the rebels in Sicily was insufficient to change the eventual outcome. His attitude to Hungary was more complex. The need for a strong Austria as a counterweight to Russia meant that Britain could not support Hungarian independence, but this did not prevent Palmerston from making his opinion clear. When the Austrian General Haynau, who had brutally put down the Hungarian rising, was insulted and attacked by a crowd on an 1850 visit to London, Palmerston was very slow to offer an apology. In contrast, when the liberal Hungarian leader, Kossuth, visited Britain in October 1851, Palmerston had to be ordered by his prime minister not to meet him. Meanwhile, in the dispute over the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein, Palmerston displayed a mild pro-Danish bias, and in 1852 the Danish Crown was awarded the area. Palmerston could not know that Prussia would take over the provinces in a further conflict in 1864. There is little sign of extreme liberalism in Palmerston’s handling of these failed attempts to overthrow unpopular and alien governments across Europe.

‘Gunboat’ diplomacy ‘Wherever British subjects are placed in danger, thither a British Ship of War ought to be . . . for the protection of British interests.’ Palmerston’s words of 1846 were implemented on several occasions.

Don Pacifico, 1850 The Don Pacifico Affair is the archetypal Palmerstonian action. Don Pacifico was a Portuguese trader, who claimed British citizenship because his birthplace was Gibraltar, although he acted as

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2 – FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1846–68 • 17

Portuguese consul general in Athens. He was Jewish and some of his property in Athens had been damaged in anti-Semitic riots in 1847. The Greek authorities had refused him any compensation, although he was clearly entitled to something, though perhaps not the phenomenal £81,000 he demanded (the parliamentary dowry for the princess royal in 1857 was £40,000). Palmerston announced that the port of Piraeus would be blockaded unless compensation was paid: he did this without consulting France and Russia, the two other nations entrusted with the international protection of Greece since it had first won independence from Turkey. By the time a compromise arrangement had been agreed, a blockade had been put in place by the British officials on the spot, to the fury of the French. Palmerston was defeated in a vote of censure in the Lords, but won over the Commons with a virtuoso performance in which he declared that British subjects should be as assured of security as an ancient Roman would have been when he declared (like St Paul in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 16) ‘Civis Romanus Sum’. Palmerston survived in office, but Queen Victoria was tired of his high-handed ways and demanded his resignation the following year when, without consulting or even informing her and his cabinet colleagues, he recognised the coup d’état which transformed President Louis Napoleon Bonaparte into the Emperor Napoleon III in France.

The Arrow incident 1856 Although these events in China have a ‘Palmerstonian’ sound to them, the main responsibility lay with the British authorities in Hong Kong. The Arrow was registered in Hong Kong, although she did not fly a British flag. When the Chinese authorities seized the vessel on suspicion of piracy, the British consul in Canton (Guangzhou) demanded a written apology. The governor of Hong Kong backed up the demand by authorising the bombardment of official residences in the town. When the news reached Britain, months later, Palmerston supported the actions taken; he was censured in the House of Commons, but public opinion ensured that he won the resulting general election. Military operations in combination with the French resulted in the Treaty of Tientsin (1858), which further enhanced the economic position of the Western powers at the expense of China. Ten new treaty ports were established, where extra-territorial powers were confirmed, and the opium trade was legalised; diplomatic recognition was also secured for the foreign powers, and the interior opened up to traders and even missionaries. When the Chinese government refused to ratify the treaty and tortured and killed various European officials, European troops attacked Peking (Beijing) and burned the summer palace in 1860.

The Crimean War 1854–6 The immediate result of Palmerston’s fall in 1851 had been a change of attitude to the Russians. Lord Aberdeen appointed Lord Clarendon to the foreign office. He and Aberdeen deeply disliked the reactionary government of the sultan and were inclined to trust the tsar’s promises that Russia sought a peaceful reform to help the Balkan Christians. Palmerston’s policies in earlier years had shown the Russians that any threat to Turkey would be met with force. Clarendon’s attitude of conciliation may have made the Crimean War more likely. John Lowe concludes that the mixed messages were a major cause of war: ‘war might have been avoided if either Aberdeen’s policy of conciliation or Palmerston’s firmer approach had been followed consistently. It was the mixture

18 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

of the two that proved disastrous.’4 As the Russians made it clear that they would use force to protect the Balkan Christians, Aberdeen tried hard to avoid war, which was eventually declared on Russia in March 1854. Inadequate leadership, appalling conditions for the troops and, for the first time, detailed newspaper reports of the horrors which the fighting men were suffering, made this a war fought in the full light of public opinion. Peace was finally achieved at the Treaty of Paris in March 1856.

The Indian ‘mutiny’ 1857 The British possessions in India had been an underlying theme in much of the foreign policy of Palmerston, notably his hostility to Russia. In 1857, however, India became a central issue. Discontent had been simmering in India for some time: Lord Dalhousie’s attempts to reform certain traditional practices, such as the self-immolation of Hindu widows, had led to fears of forced conversion to Christianity. The sepoys and lascars of the Indian armies erupted when rumours circulated that new cartridges were greased with cow or pig fat. (In order to load their guns, the soldier had to bite the bullet out of its protective greased paper and the animal fat would have made this unacceptable to Muslims and to Hindus.) A rising at Meerut in May spread to Delhi and then to Kanpur (Cawnpore) where British civilians and troops were massacred; Lucknow was besieged, but by September 1857 the risings were over and horrible reprisals were committed by British troops. In August 1858 the India Act tried to prevent any repetition of the trouble by putting the British government, rather than the East India Company, fully in charge. A secretary of state for India in London and a viceroy in India increased control.

The Orsini plot and the Conspiracy to Murder Bill 1858 Palmerston’s final extravagant action came in the wake of the Orsini plot. An attempt to assassinate the Emperor Napoleon III had been plotted by conspirators who lived (and made their bombs) in Birmingham. Palmerston tried to enact a bill which made it a felony to plot a murder, even if the murder was to take place outside Britain and even if the murder failed. When the bill was rejected in the Commons, Palmerston resigned, though he returned to office briefly in the next year. Although he failed to persuade the cabinet to send help to Garibaldi’s freedom fighters in Sicily, Britain was able to celebrate its part in the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861.

Schleswig-Holstein and Prussia Britain continued to view France as a danger: their involvement in Italy had been partly designed to limit French influence, and when a rebellion began in Poland in 1863 against Russian rule, Britain was anxious that France should not use the trouble to draw closer to Prussia. Thus the Poles were crushed. When Denmark attempted to take over Schleswig, in contravention of the agreements which had followed the 1848 revolutions, Prussia responded with military action. Britain failed to come to the assistance of Denmark, partly because of the pro-Prussian attitude of the queen. Palmerston’s death in 1865 meant that he did not witness the unification of Germany, a development which he had never regarded as a possibility.

ESSAYS • 19

Relationships with the USA The USA and Britain were important trading partners, but at government level relationships were often cool; since independence, the British had antagonised the Americans, not just with war in 1812–14 but also in their attempts to stop the slave trade. The frontier with Canada also caused friction, and the final settlement of the 49th parallel had not been agreed until 1846. When the war between the states broke out in 1861, Britain’s official neutrality barely disguised Palmerston’s delight at the possibility that the union might break up permanently. Liberal public opinion favoured the North, because of the issue of slavery, although for Gladstone the question of states’ rights, and the preservation of the federal constitution which guaranteed them, meant that the South was in the right. And in the cotton areas of Lancashire and Cheshire, support was all for the South. The nearest Britain came to involvement in the war was during the Trent incident. The prince consort, already ill with the typhoid that was to kill him, persuaded Palmerston to be conciliatory and the incident ended without leading to war. Potentially more serious was the Alabama affair. The confederate states had ordered this ship from the Jonathan Laird yard in Birkenhead, and in July 1862 it was allowed to leave, equipped by public subscription in Liverpool. The indignation of the North, though expressed at the time, was not fully felt until the war was over, when a demand for compensation for damage done by the ship was met by Gladstone’s government. The departure of Palmerston, and indeed of Clarendon, was to lead to a lessening of Britain’s involvement in Europe. ‘Once Stanley took over the Foreign Office in June 1866 . . . intervention in continental politics became almost unthinkable.’5 Palmerston’s flamboyant style was no longer acceptable to the taxpayer, nor appropriate to the changing balance of power as Prussia increased in size and strength. Besides, as the British Empire grew, it was inevitable that the focus should be upon it.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts; of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. Changes in ministry a) b)

Why did the years 1846–68 see so many changes in ministry? Consider the view that these many changes demonstrate in particular the weakness of the Conservatives.

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The reasons for the volatile nature of parliamentary politics in this period range from the structural to the interplay of personalities, and to the issues which arose. One outcome of the 1832 Parliamentary Reform Act had been to move the focus of power more towards the House of Commons. Prime ministers, however, still tended to sit in the Lords and the effect of this distant leadership was to make the Commons unruly, and more likely to vote down government measures and precipitate at least changes in ministry and often elections as well.

20 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

The queen’s influence continued to be an unsettling factor. Her early preference for the Liberals was reduced by the departure of her ‘dear Lord Melbourne’ in 1841, but her likes and dislikes remained strong, even with the restraining influence of Prince Albert. Her deep dislike of Palmerston meant that she did all within her constitutional authority to keep him out of government. An example of her influence can been seen in 1855, when Aberdeen’s apparently stable ministry was forced out by the terrible news from the war front of the Crimea. When, in January 1855, it was proposed that the Commons should appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the army, Russell, leader in the House of Commons, resigned, leaving Aberdeen’s cabinet divided and demoralised. The motion to set up the committee passed with a large majority (305–148), and so Aberdeen resigned. The queen sent first for Lord Derby and then for Sir John Russell, but when they both declared themselves unable to form a government, she was reluctantly compelled to send for the man the country wanted, Palmerston. A further problem was Palmerston himself. Against a background of lacklustre and ageing politicians, Palmerston seemed larger than life and encouraged a theatrical reaction to international events which was destabilising to Parliament. His handling, for instance, of the Arrow incident, precipitated a change of ministry followed by a general election, which led to his return. Foreign problems could also lead to changes in ministry without recourse to a general election, as with the Crimean War and the fall of Aberdeen. It was not only foreign affairs, however, which led to instability and changes in ministry. Of all the issues discussed by Parliament, the most destabilising was the issue of parliamentary reform. Each ministry felt the need to consider the issue of further reform, but there was so little consensus that a majority was difficult to obtain. It was the question of parliamentary reform which forced the resignation of Lord John Russell in 1851, although he returned to power shortly afterwards. In 1859, the Conservative ministry of Lord Stanley fell when it tried to introduce a general parliamentary reform to complement its changes to the property qualifications. Again, in 1865, the Liberals were forced to resign over their attempt to introduce parliamentary reform without an electoral mandate. From the moment of the first Reform Act of 1832, the question of how much further reform was needed and when it should be achieved was always in the background of parliamentary activity and contributed to ministerial change. b) Of the many changes in ministry between 1846 and 1866, only a few actually involved the Conservatives, with many of the ministries simply entailing a change of Liberal leader, or a realignment of Peelites with one or other Liberal group. But this pattern in itself demonstrates the weakness of the Conservatives. The years after 1846 saw them badly damaged and split. Peel, convinced of the rightness of free trade as a policy, and of the need to provide help to Ireland, ensured that the party would be torn apart, with a substantial number of ‘Peelites’ voting with and eventually joining the Liberals. His death in 1851 also removed one of the very few Conservatives in the Commons who could lead, at a time when, as Prince Albert suggested, the balance of power was shifting from the Lords to the Commons. Other potential leaders, such as Gladstone, were convinced Peelites and defected from the party. Until the emergence of Disraeli, Conservative leadership came from the Lords, and the fact that Disraeli was a potential leader was in turn disturbing to many Conservatives, since his theatrical appearance and intellectualism seemed inappropriate and his florid defence of British country life

ESSAYS • 21

seemed to spring from his own fiction rather than a knowledge of the facts. Although both Parties continued, into the twentieth century, to have prime ministers who sat in the Lords, an effective leader in the Commons was essential for stability, and this the Conservatives lacked. The nineteenth century was dominated by the Liberals. In the 14 general elections between 1831 and 1885, Conservatives won majorities in just two. They held office from time to time, but usually only when, for some reason, the Liberals were in disarray. This is in sharp contrast to the twentieth century, when the Conservatives became clearly the party of government, with the Liberals and then the Labour Party dislodging them only occasionally and briefly. The start of the twenty-first century has seen a return to Conservative splits and uncertainties reminiscent of the nineteenth. When the Conservatives were offered an opportunity of forming a ministry, too often they were not able to guarantee a majority. In both 1851 and 1852, Lord Stanley was summoned by the queen, but he was not able to assure her that he could form a stable ministry. When they did form a ministry, they were bound to pursue policies sufficiently different from those of their opponents to risk defeat in the Commons. In 1852, the problem was the budget. The lack of a tight party discipline was the feature which is hardest for the modern student to understand. Quite aside from the kind of difference in principle which split the Peelites from the Conservatives, both parties were affected by the willingness of their nominal followers to vote against them on all kinds of issues. The Liberals, in particular, confident that their side would be in government whatever they chose to do, were capable of voting against bills which had been expected to pass, such as the Militia Bill, whose defeat removed Russell in 1851. Although the weakness of the Conservatives may have encouraged the Liberals to hold their own leaders to account in many votes and ensured that the Conservative ministries were particularly brief, the main reason for the many short ministries of this period was structural rather than individual. The lack of a strong party structure was exacerbated by the shifting balance between Lords and Commons, and the perennial issue of whether either party should provide legislation to extend the franchise further. Once a new reform act was passed, ministries which lasted the full period of the parliament became more common. At the same time, of course, the next two decades saw clear and determined leadership of both the parties, as the old men of the 1830s finally left the political scene. a) b)

Give an account of the main changes in ministry that occurred between 1846 and 1868. How significant was this period in the development of the Liberal Party?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Part (a) should be dealt with fairly briskly: the difficulty lies in avoiding a list, and it is sensible to group changes together, identifying those connected with retirement and those which were the result of parliamentary defeats. Part (b) needs to be put in the context of the changing nature of the Liberal Party, as well as the disarray in the Conservative Party following the repeal of the Corn Laws.

22 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

2. The demand for electoral reform How did the demand for parliamentary reform develop between the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts?

(90 marks)

The provisions made by the 1832 Reform Act were such that further reform was inevitable. The electorate of the 1840s and 1850s was effectively limited to the middle classes. Freehold land ownership of a piece of property worth 40 shillings a year was the main qualification in the county constituencies; but freehold land ownership remained very rare in a countryside dominated by large landowners. The 1832 Act had extended the franchise, but only to those with substantial leaseholdings. Only property holders, it was believed, were sufficiently responsible to be full citizens. Men who were holders of short leases had to hold land worth a staggering £50 per year. Thus the two MPs who represented each county were members of the class which elected them. In the chartered boroughs, a uniform franchise allowed any man to vote whose home was valued at £10 a year. Again, this limited electoral power to the wealthier shopkeepers and skilled artisans. The right to vote remained a matter of geography as well as of wealth. Some tiny towns continued to have a charter, and the densely populated counties had been allocated only a few additional seats in 1832. Although the worst of the abuses had been removed, it was still true that some boroughs were so small as to be ‘rotten’. In democratic terms, more serious was the fact that some boroughs and several counties were effectively ‘in the pocket’ of a local employer or landlord. Since electoral voting was done openly, leaseholders were unlikely to vote against their landlord’s candidate. The Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832 had probably doubled the electorate to about 800,000, out of a total population of almost 27 million. There was, of course, no suggestion that women should have the vote, or that there should be any qualification other than property. In a period where taxation was the exception rather than the rule, it would have seemed reckless to put in charge of determining tax levels, those classes who paid none. On the other hand, throughout the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s, the issue of extending the franchise was discussed and debated. The Chartists may have had extreme hopes, but there were many other groups who were convinced that further reform was essential. Demand for further reform began among the radicals, almost as soon as the 1832 Act had been passed. The Birmingham Political Union, which had campaigned for the first act, immediately began to campaign for its extension. Their petition of 1838 marked the beginning of the kind of agitation with which the Chartists are associated. Significantly, however, the Chartist movement extended the range of people demanding reform: from a middle-class demand for the rights that the wealthy already had, the campaign for the franchise became more and more revolutionary, as it was recognised as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. The growing numbers of industrial workers, noting the influence of Parliament over their living and working conditions, could easily be persuaded that the right to vote would improve their everyday life. Although Feargus O’Connor did not like industrialisation and dreamed of a rural idyll, his campaign politicised the working classes. At the same time, politicians of all parties began to recognise that public opinion must be considered and that further reform would be inevitable. Barely a year passed in the 1850s without a

ESSAYS • 23

motion to extend the franchise. Many of the draft bills were so moderate that they would have made little difference. Russell’s planned bill of 1865, for instance, would merely have lowered the property qualification for the borough franchise by a few pounds; a similar change would have been made in the counties, enfranchising fewer than half a million men who were sober and respectable enough to have, for example, £50 in a savings bank. Russell’s bill also recognised the imbalance in the constituencies, and a few smaller boroughs would have lost their seats, to be shared among the more populous counties and some larger boroughs. It is noteworthy that these mild plans were not acceptable to many Liberals, who felt that the franchise should be reserved for the most moral and conscientious citizens only. While the politicians failed to put through even the most moderate reform, the educated working classes were becoming more politicised and insisting on greater representation. The growing numbers of clerks and administrators who now maintained the great commercial enterprises of Britain demanded the right to participate in the constitutional process. They were interested in and knowledgeable about such foreign issues as the freedom struggle led by Garibaldi in the south of Italy: when Garibaldi spoke at a meeting at the Crystal Palace, 20,000 working men gathered to hear him. Shortly after his visit, the Reform League was established with a membership including former Chartists, bricklayers and also barristers and civil bureaucrats. It had Marxist connections and a larger, but less wealthy, membership than the middle-class Reform Union, which had been established the year before, in 1864. Their aim, to campaign for an extension to the franchise, was echoed in Gladstone’s statement to the Commons in 1864: ‘Every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the constitution.’6 Gladstone was unusual in his claim that the right to vote should be a universal rather than a selective entitlement. By the mid-1860s, the demand for reform had attracted supporters from almost all classes. But there was no consensus on the issue of how far the franchise should be extended. The final ingredient came with the economic downturn of 1866. The collapse of stocks and shares in May 1866 resulted in a bank rate rise and widespread unemployment. When poor harvests and an outbreak of cholera led to violent protests and radical meetings, parliamentary reform once again became the subject of slogans and demonstrations. A few members of the Liberal Party even defected, calling themselves the Adullamites, after the Cave of Abdullam, where the biblical King David had been forced to take shelter in adversity.7 Lord Derby, who became prime minister with the fall of Russell in 1866, concluded that parliamentary reform had a mandate, given that Russell’s bill had been read twice before its defeat at the committee stage. Derby’s leader in the House of Commons, Disraeli, concurred, without wanting to damage the Conservative hold on the counties or make too major a change. At first, through many hours of debate, all kinds of ‘fancy franchises’ were discussed, including the possibility of a reading test for voters, designed to ensure that only responsible citizens gained the vote, and the various bodies outside Parliament who were campaigning for the vote were uncertain of whether a satisfactory law would be passed. In the event, the 1867 Reform Act, when passed, was a far more radical measure than anyone had expected or planned for and the effect of the act was to add about 1 million new voters, predominantly in the boroughs, where all householders were enfranchised. This meant that, for example, in Birmingham the number of voters went up by 300 per cent and, in almost all boroughs, workers

24 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

were now in the majority. The effect in the counties was much less dramatic, and this could lead to anomalies amounting to injustice. Since the most active campaigns had been in the towns, the 1867 Reform Act met many of their demands. But the inequality of its coverage ensured that further reforms would follow over the next decades.

a) b)

Which groups were demanding the vote in the years before 1867? How far did the Reform Act of 1867 satisfy the demands of campaigners for electoral reform?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Both parts of this question require an evaluation of the comparative importance of different groups. You need a methodical consideration of both those who did not yet have the vote and demanded it and those enfranchised people who felt that the electorate should be extended. There is room, given the word ‘demand’, to discuss the violence and rioting of the weeks before the passing of the 1867 Act. Part (b) will give you an opportunity to evaluate the terms of the act against the template of those who had been most active in the campaign and to look ahead to future electoral reform.

3. The Chartists a) b)

What were the main demands of the Chartists? Why and with what justification was the government of Britain so alarmed by the Chartist petition of 1848?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The Chartist movement had sprung from two main sources. The first was dissatisfaction with the limited nature of the 1832 Reform Act, which had enfranchised comparatively few, but had demonstrated that Parliament was willing and able to make changes in the size and nature of the electorate and in the distribution of parliamentary seats. The second influence was the growing radicalisation and politicisation of some groups of working people, as expressed in the formation of trade unions and the growth of self-help education groups. The demands of the Chartists were linked to the aspirations of radical working men to play a full part in their own government. The failure of earlier attempts had reduced the credibility of the methods of the Chartists, but their demands were none the less relevant and forward looking. To facilitate the direct participation of working men in the political process, they demanded the end of property qualifications for MPs. This was, in the event, the first of their demands to be met, in 1858, although we can still see its echoes in the deposit which candidates are required to put down before standing for Parliament. The end of the property qualification alone would not have been enough to enable working men to stand, however, and so the Chartists also demanded the payment of MPs from public funds. This demand was to take half a century to achieve, although resistance to it was far more a matter of reluctance to tax and spend than an issue of principle. By 1911, taxation had become a much more common method of funding than it had been in the days of the Chartists.

ESSAYS • 25

If the people were to be fully and fairly represented, electoral constituencies needed to be equal in terms of population. Parliament had begun moves towards this goal with the disenfranchising of some rotten and pocket boroughs in 1832, but there were still enormous disparities. The county representation had lightly populated areas such as Cornwall and small shires such as Rutland, represented by two MPs, just like the crowded and industrial counties. Redistribution acts were to address this question and the adjustment of boundaries according to population statistics was gradually recognised as necessary. The Chartists also felt that annual elections would ensure that Members of Parliament remained in close touch with, and answerable to, their constituents, but this has always been agreed to be unwieldy and costly. Indeed in periods when elections have come close together, voter apathy has had the effect of seriously reducing turnout. What appeared to be the two most radical demands are the two which we should now regard as completely essential to any democratic process. The Chartists demanded universal adult suffrage. This was regarded as revolutionary and dangerous, since it would put law-making into the hands of those who did not own property and public spending into the hands of those too poor to pay direct taxes. None the less, by 1864, Gladstone had accepted the principle that men should vote unless for some reason not able to, and moves towards universal suffrage continued inexorably, if slowly, for the next 80 years. Of course, a popular vote would be of limited value to working people who could be dismissed from their employment or evicted from their homes if they voted against the interests of their employers or landlords (and of course, for many thousands of workers the two were the same person); for this reason, the Chartists also demanded ‘vote by ballot’, that is, secret voting; this was to be achieved in 1872. The demands of the Chartists appear, to the modern eye, quite reasonable, and therefore it is surprising to see the fear and alarm with which the authorities greeted the petition, and the demonstrations which accompanied it. b) The government and other authorities in Britain were certainly extremely concerned about the Chartist demonstration. Prince Albert wrote to Baron Stockmar on 5 June 1848, ‘The organisation of these people is incredible. They have secret signals and correspond from town to town by means of carrier pigeons.’8 On 10 April, a demonstration of – it is estimated – at most 20,000 Chartists was met by 8,000 troops and 4,000 police, with heavy guns held in readiness at the Tower of London, to be brought along the river if necessary. 150,000 Special Constables were sworn in and the telegraph systems all over Britain were commandeered by the government. Given the lack of organisation of the Chartists and the risible forgeries and dishonesty of their petition, this seems like the over-reaction of a frightened administration. In the event, the petition, containing fewer than 1.5 million names, although Feargus O’Connor had claimed over 5 million, was taken to parliament in three cabs and the meeting broke up without trouble. Why were the authorities so alarmed? There was, in the first half of the nineteenth century, an undue fear of the mob, dating from problems and riots in the previous century and in the 1820s. The earlier Chartist campaigns had coincided with periods of considerable economic difficulty and had, as a consequence, led to strikes and other industrial unrest; although the 1848 petition was presented at a time of economic recession, it did not lead a recurrence of the wider unrest which the government feared. The easy containment of previous Chartist and other risings might have been expected to give them confidence, but the government also had in mind occasions

26 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

abroad when power had changed hands as a result of mob action: France had suffered such a fate in 1830 as well as in the eighteenth century. The year 1848 had begun with rumblings of mob power across Europe which were serious enough to alarm the British public. The metropolitan police force was a young institution, established in 1841, and thus the traditional method of crowd control had been to call in the troops or at least the militia. This use of armed response had paradoxically encouraged the public to see any large demonstration as dangerous and war-like. It was not known how well the unarmed police force would be able to control such large numbers, although in the event they were to demonstrate their skill and forbearance. The fact that the demonstration was planned for London was also a matter of anxiety and concern. London had a large and growing working-class population, or proletariat, as they were about to be named by Karl Marx. The number of Irishmen living in London had grown during the previous few years and swelled the number of market porters and dockworkers who seemed so threatening to the middle-class residents. Many people feared that the leadership of the Chartists was to an extent unbalanced and irrational. Feargus O’Connor was a man of feverish enthusiasms, who had emerged to organise the petition from his attempts to establish a utopian rural community in Hertfordshire. Who could predict how his oratory would affect the volatile workers of London? Certainly he and his followers were prepared to lie and cheat, as indicated the apparent signing of the petition by the queen, the duke of Wellington and Mr Punch. There was a feeling, which proved mistaken, that O’Connor might arouse powerful and uncontrollable action from the mob. At the opposite extreme, many in the educated classes considered that some of the points being made by the Chartists had validity. Since 1832, it had been publicly acknowledged that rotten boroughs needed reforming, and the Chartists were suggesting the equalisation of electoral districts. The question of the monopoly on political power of the propertied classes was also an issue of growing concern, and thus the ending of the property qualifications for MPs seemed reasonable. Even those who supported further reform of Parliament, however, would have feared being forced into the ultimate step of empowering, politically, the vast mass of the population, who had little education and who paid no taxes. They would have been amazed to be told that the franchise was to be extended to many of the working class within 20 years. Melbourne’s government could and did congratulate itself on escaping so lightly in the year that saw revolutions in most European countries and an attempted rising in Ireland. But were their fears at all justified? The Chartist demonstration was neither as large nor as well organised as they had feared. Britain had no real tradition of the use of excessive violence in pursuit of political ends, although there had been riots and demonstrations in the past, and the repeated attempts by the Chartists to arouse mass support had been unsuccessful. In the end, it was the lack of numbers which encouraged the Chartist leadership to resort to forgeries of the most blatant kind, which in turn ensured that the Chartist movement would die of the ridicule and humiliation of the unconvincing signatures on its petition.

ESSAYS • 27

a) b)

Why did the Chartist demonstration of 1848 fail? To what extent did political unrest die down following the failure of the Chartist petition?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

You need to deal quite briskly with part (a), ensuring that you consider both the internal problems of the Chartist movement by this time and the external constraints which ensured the farcical results of the demonstration of 1848. The most important word in part (b) is ‘political’; the question gives you an opportunity to look at the different forms of political activity which existed in the 1850s and 1860s and to consider the extent to which they were significant or dangerous. This is an opportunity to discuss the way in which the trade unions absorbed some of the concerns of the more educated working classes.

4. Trade unionism a) b)

Which groups of workers were organised into trade unions in these years? Why did trade unions play so little part in public life during this period?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Membership of the trade union movement remained surprisingly low during the years leading up to the first meeting of the Trade Union Congress in 1868. According to Neville Kirk, there were fewer than a quarter of a million members of trade unions by the end of the 1860s.9 Despite the rapid industrialisation of Britain and the movement of people into towns and into factory work, the explosive growth of trade unions was delayed until the 1880s. The members of trade unions were people in the older trades of the industrial revolution: spinners, weavers and frame knitters in the textile trades, for example, and engineers, carpenters and joiners in the construction and machinery trades. Coal mining was also unionised, although deep-shaft mining was a very new industry in the middle years of the nineteenth century. Coal miners were exceptional, in the hardness and danger of their working conditions, whether they were skilled or not. They were also vulnerable to the whim of coal owners who, in most cases, also controlled their accommodation, since the coal mines were often in areas where there were few other trades and where the housing was the property of the mine owner and allocated as a part of the wages of the miner. Thus it is not surprising that they had seen the need to combine early in the century. However, the key date in the history of trade unionism during this period is 1851, which saw the establishment of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. This became the ‘model’ for the craft unions which grew during the 1850s and 1860s, providing a sober and sensible forum for discussion and, above all, a protection for the wages and conditions of the highly skilled craftsmen who made up the membership of this and other craft trade unions. Their key concerns were to protect skills, by supervising training and qualification in much the same way as the medieval guilds had done, and to ensure that there was no disruption to trade. They were against strikes, as Robert Applegarth, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners told the 1867 Royal

28 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

Commission: ‘I would have a man do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage.’10 They preferred to negotiate for better conditions, secure in the certainty that the employers could not easily replace their skills and knowledge. For the mass of workers, however, trade unions were not available for a variety of reasons. Although the Combination Acts had been repealed in the 1830s, there was still no guarantee of security for members, as the long drawn out case of the Tolpuddle ‘martyrs’ had demonstrated. Many workers were so ill paid that they could not afford the subscriptions necessary to pay officials, and the case of Hornby v Close emphasised the vulnerability of union members, since it denied unions the protection of the courts in case of embezzlement by dishonest treasurers. Economic difficulties in the 1840s made it even harder for workers to combine, since an unskilled worker who was a union member could easily be replaced by another who was not, from the pool of the unemployed. The fear of the mob, so clearly exemplified in the government’s reaction to the Chartist demonstrations, meant that strikes were regarded as dangerously revolutionary, and unskilled workers had no other weapon. b) The small numbers of trade union members was the main reason for their lack of participation in public life. Although the coal miners used the threat of strike action to ensure the Commission of Inquiry and the resultant legislation of the 1840s, they were unusual in their militant stance and wide support. The interests of the new ‘model’ unions were confined to their own affairs and to the maintenance of their own standards and wages, which were best achieved by a responsible and quiet relationship with their own employers, rather than by an involvement in public affairs. There were, however, many other organisations supporting the interests of and attracting members from the mass of the working classes. In terms of everyday life, the Friendly Societies (regulated in 1855) had an obvious relevance, in providing mechanisms to help with savings and with assistance in case of unemployment or sickness. The number of Friendly Society members rose to almost 2 million by the end of the 1860s. Similarly, the co-operative movement assisted with the other main problem of the working family, by supplying good quality food and other goods at reasonable prices, within the communities where the workers lived. The movement received legislative recognition in 1852 and membership reached over half a million by the 1880s. Other topics also engaged the attention of working men, to the detriment of the formation and activity of the trade unions. Many areas established working men’s institutions, where education was available in the evenings and on work-free days, and these rapidly became centres for political and economic discussion. Here the new ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were discussed and basic literacy and numeracy skills were disseminated. From these sources, working men were able to develop the interest and abilities which were to supply the leadership of the national trade union movement of the 1870s and 1880s. Working men participated in public life in a variety of ways, without the formal involvement of trade unions. The campaign to win the vote for working men, for example, was dominated in the provinces by those who were also members of the non-political trade unions, or who might have become involved in trade unionism if, as in France, syndicalism rather than parliamentary reform had been seen as the way forward. The Chartists and the subsequent Reform League were men of

ESSAYS • 29

the type who in later years would form the backbone of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. The conviction that representation in Parliament was the best way to safeguard the rights and conditions of workers led to the – sometimes violent – agitation for the reform of the franchise. The demonstrations in Hyde Park and in cities across Britain were dominated by speakers who had close links with the trade union movement. The fact that the 1867 Reform Act, when it came, more than fulfilled their demands was more a result of factionalism within the House of Commons than of convincing argument and the threat of public disorder outside it. Thus we can see that, in these middle years of the nineteenth century, working men had other priorities than the formation of unions and other mechanisms for making their voices heard and achieving their aims. Only when it became clear that the vote alone was not enough to provide a government that was sensitive and responsive to the needs of the workers of the country, did trade unionism take a further step forward. Although the trade unions played little part in the public life of the 1850s and 1860s, there were increasing pressures to combine and several groupings occurred during the 1860s, which pointed the way to the modern unionism of the 1880s. Despite public anger at the so-called Sheffield Outrages of 1867, when violence was committed against non-unionised workers, the perception of unions as a source of potential benefit was to be reflected in the Liberal Trade Union Act of 1871, which established unionism on a sound legal basis. The period of their self-exclusion from public affairs was effectively over.

Consider the view that the working classes were sufficiently protected by legislation not to need trade union membership in these years.

(90 marks)

You might begin your answer with an indication of which workers were represented, followed by the reasons why it was such a small percentage of workers; you need to consider reasons both within and without the movement. This will lead naturally to a discussion of what legislation there was to protect workers and the extent to which there appeared to be a momentum in factory and other industrial legislation. The fact that the TUC met for the first time in 1868 enables you to look briefly ahead to the radical changes that were to occur in the union movement in the next 20 years.

5. The royal family a) b)

Why was Prince Albert so unpopular in Britain? What influence did the queen and the royal family have on public affairs during this period?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) At the time of his marriage, Albert, was a good and conscientious young man; throughout his life he behaved with dignified restraint, bringing both happiness and increasing serenity to his excitable wife. It is therefore surprising that he was unpopular, both with the general public – or at least the burgeoning popular press – and with the politicians and Parliament.

30 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68 Figure 2.4 Queen Victoria in mourning, 1861

His first fault, of course, was that he was foreign. Although rationally it was recognised that there could be no Englishman of suitable rank to wed a reigning queen, the British dislike of foreigners was strong. A prince from a minor German state was more appropriate than the ruler of a major nation, supposing there had been a Protestant available; but there was nevertheless the suspicion that Albert was ‘on the make’ and keen to fill Britain with his cronies, as earlier consorts had done in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The young queen had been regarded with a sentimental affection by her people at the time of her accession: after a series of kings who were male, middle-aged and of dubious mental or moral condition, the young and innocent girl had won the hearts of all. Thus Albert was, in a sense, seen as the usurper of her love. In addition, rumours were spread before their marriage that he was a secret member of the Roman Catholic Church. Based on the fact that several of his Coburg relations had married Catholics, or had converted, this was as far as Albert was concerned completely untrue and yet still damaging. Markers of his unpopularity extended beyond lampoons in the popular press. Parliament repeatedly refused to grant him any title or precedence at all. Before their marriage they had refused to accept his precedence as second only to the queen, and therefore Victoria had been forced to issue letters patent to that effect. In a period when childbirth was extremely dangerous – after all, Victoria was only queen because of the death of Princess Charlotte in 1817 – Albert was made Regent during the periods when she was giving birth, but that was merely to ensure that he could be involved in the upbringing of any child. Given Victoria’s robust health, this was not a role that he would ever fill. More relevant titles were not forthcoming. After waiting 17 years for Parliament to grant a title, the queen again resorted to letters patent and he was finally made prince consort in 1857. A further measure of his unpopularity was the scorn poured on his plans for the Great Exhibition of 1851, with the newspapers cavilling at every detail from the costs to the content and The Times in particular claiming that Hyde Park would be ruined forever. The great success of the Exhibition, with its 6 million visitors, its world-wide reputation, and the precedent it set for similar exhibitions around the world and through the years, was to ensure his future reputation.

ESSAYS • 31

As his unpopularity lessened, Albert was able to influence public matters very much as he was already influencing his wife. It was his advice that ensured that Victoria concealed her rabid loathing of the Conservatives and became ‘above party’. This may well have been his most enduring legacy to Britain, since a monarchy which overtly showed party political bias might not have survived the political changes of the twentieth century. He gave advice and recommended periods of reflection, which ensured that difficulties did not become crises. The Trent incident is a significant example. Britain had remained detached from the civil war in the United States but was naturally wooed by both sides. A group of envoys from the Southern Confederate States travelled to Britain on the British mail ship, Trent. She was stopped at sea by the USS San Jacinto and they were arrested. The stopping and searching of a neutral ship was against international law (though the Royal Navy had done it often enough in past conflicts) and might have led to war had it not been for Albert’s mediating influence. Thanks to his diplomacy, the envoys were set free and war was averted. Albert’s tragically early death, in 1861, put an end to further improvements in his relationship with the British people and Parliament. It is, however, reasonable to discern some guilt at their earlier mistreatment of him in the willingness of councils and politicians across the country to erect memorials to him after his death. They recognised that they had lost a dutiful and supportive influence on the queen, who had changed forever the way in the which the crown interacted with the other branches of the British government. b) The British constitution, unwritten though it is, makes clear what the role of the monarch should be: that of being consulted, of advising and admonishing, and Victoria fulfilled these roles in a dutiful way, particularly once the influence of Albert had persuaded her to be less partisan and less inclined to allow her strong likes and dislikes to influence her public actions. The influence of the rest of the royal family on public life in general, though less tangible, was also significant. Victoria was involved on several occasions in the selection of a prime minister, when the volatile nature of party loyalties made it difficult to find one outright leader. Her dislike of Palmerston ensured that she tried to find others to lead her government, even when, as in 1855, public opinion demanded Lord Palmerston and no other. She inclined to favour Prussia and to support the overseas monarchs whom she had met and liked, but she could never insist that, for example, British help went to support King Louis Philippe, or that British assistance was offered to Prussia in its war against Denmark. After the death of Albert, her isolation ensured that her influence dwindled to an extent that might have endangered the monarchy had republicanism been a serious political movement in Britain. Victoria’s participation in public life was, of course, limited by her many pregnancies, nine in all between 1840 and 1857, an impressive number for a woman who was not overfond of babies and who suffered in childbirth until Dr John Snow administered what she called ‘that blessed chloroform’ for the birth of her eighth child, Leopold. The pregnancies were the price she paid for her deep and passionate love for Albert, since she hated being pregnant and referred to the years without pregnancy as ‘years of liberation’. She felt ill and frightened, not unreasonably given the dangers of childbirth in the nineteenth century. The weeks of pregnancy strained her nerves until arguments erupted between Albert and herself which expressed themselves in letters and notes of

32 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

admonition (on his side) and recrimination (on hers), restored to deep affection only when the dangers were past; in addition, the pregnancies and the post-natal recovery periods meant substantial periods out of the public eye, although she continued to read and comment on state papers. An intangible, but none the less real, influence which the royal family as a whole exercised was their example of domestic and marital harmony. After the uncertainties of the previous reigns, with George III’s insanity followed by the debauchery of George IV and the lack of a direct legitimate heir during the reign of William IV, Victoria had offered the promise of better times. She became the epitome of wifely duty and caring motherhood, at the same time as being recognised as a hard-working and respected queen. Family life became an acceptable pattern even for the most fashionable, and the less restrained behaviour of the famous began to be the subject of censure in the popular press. The queen and her young children visited the Great Exhibition on a number of occasions; they took seaside holidays together as a family. And thus the pattern of behaviour for the groups in society who could afford leisure and outings was set. Albert’s influence was felt more subtly than in the Crystal Palace and the Trent affair. He reformed the strange mechanisms of the royal household, so that economies were possible. Before his reforms, for example, the Lord Steward’s department laid fires, but the Lord Chamberlain’s department lit the fires. Such anomalies provided unending opportunities for inefficiency and, indeed, corruption. Albert also made sure that the queen’s own private money was spent on the new holiday homes in Scotland and the Isle of Wight, although by the end of the 1860s questions were being asked about the size of the allowances paid for the household and dowries of the various older children. The queen was beginning to embody a particular view of the glory and importance of Empire, which was to become a central feature of the last decades of her reign. Her interest in the hardships of ‘her’ soldiers in the Crimea had no parallel in earlier reigns, although it was to become a normal part of future wars: we have only to think of Queen Alexandra’s army nurses and Queen Mary’s gifts to the troops of the First World War. Victoria’s concern for the ordinary soldiers, their heroism and terrible suffering was recognised in the institution, in 1856, of a new decoration. The Victoria Cross was the first British medal to be awarded regardless of rank for extreme bravery in the presence of the enemy. The first 62 Victoria Crosses were awarded by the queen herself in a ceremony in June. Victoria’s influence on politics and on government was such that the monarchy and its constitutional role survived a period of major change. Her influence on public life, in the century which bears her name, can be seen by the fact that the term ‘Victorian’ is used to describe furniture, building and art from the period, even in the United States and across the world.

a) b)

To what extent did Queen Victoria participate in the government of Britain in this period? (30 marks) ‘The high point of Victoria’s reign.’ How far is this an accurate description of the years 1841–61? (60 marks)

ESSAYS • 33

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Outline the queen’s constitutional rights and duties, and their limitations: that she had the right to be informed, to be consulted, to advise and to admonish, but in the end she was bound to take the advice of her ministers. Para 2: Her strengths: the assistance of Prince Albert; her commitment to the Empire; her friendship with foreign monarchs and the effects on foreign policy of these friendships; the fact that she encouraged moderation and respectability at home. Para 3: Her limitations: her health and (in these years) frequent pregnancies; her preference for her holiday homes and life with Albert; the workings of the parliamentary system which meant that in the end she could not choose the ministers she wanted (e.g. 1855 when she had to accept Palmerston). b) Para 4: Might comment that two decades is a long time for a ‘high point’ but the whole reign was more than six decades, and all the queen’s happiest moments fell in these years: her happy home life and the building of Osborne and Balmoral. Para 5: The Europe-wide revolutions of 1848 demonstrated British stability and security, despite the recent disasters in Ireland. Para 6: The Great Exhibition of 1851 was not just a personal triumph for Albert, but demonstrated the pre-eminence of Britain in the industrial and creative world. Para 7: The Crimean War, although disastrously fought at first, finally resulted in victory and in the personal association of the queen with her brave soldiers, in the form of the new decoration, the Victoria Cross. Para 8: The marriage of the princess royal to the heir to the Prussian (and German) throne confirmed the popularity of the family (where later there would be parliamentary complaints about the cost of all the princes and princesses). Conclusion: To sum up the general prosperity and success of Britain during these years of Victoria’s reign.

6. The Crimean War a) b)

What were the causes of the Crimean War? How far did the events of the war affect the status and policies of governments at home?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Many of the underlying causes of the Crimean War had little to do with the Black Sea peninsula where the terrible conflict took place. Russia’s economic development demanded secure and protected access to the Mediterranean and access to the River Danube, which commanded so much of the trade of Eastern Europe. Britain in its turn was concerned with the security of India and of its trade routes. Even before the construction of the Suez Canal, the building of a railway linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea had ensured that the route to India lay through the Mediterranean and thus the expansion of the Russian naval presence would be a threat. Anything

34 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

which could reduce the power and expansionist mood of the tsar would also help to secure India’s northern borders from the threat of Russian incursion. From France’s point of view, involvement as an ally in a European war would demonstrate its recovery from the defeats of 35 years earlier and would re-establish it as the most important Mediterranean power. The power which Russia threatened, and which Britain and France resolved to protect, Turkey, had been the subject of growing anxiety for many decades. Turkey continued to rule much of the eastern end of the Mediterranean, but a combination of internal weakness and external threat meant that the sultan’s throne was insecure. Demands for reform had been ignored or resisted, and this had provided Russia with the excuse it needed to threaten aggression against Turkey. Trouble in the Balkan area had been simmering since the Greeks attained their independence, but had been averted until the 1850s. The war drew nearer over the twin issues of the Christian subjects of the sultan and of the protection of the holy places. The 12 million Christians in the Balkans tended to look to Russia as their guardian. The Turkish government had, traditionally, not persecuted or sought to convert its Christian subjects, but there were discriminatory taxes to be paid, and the Greek example was before the eyes of the Serbs, the Bulgarians and the other Christian groups. In addition, the holy places of Christianity, in Turkish-held Palestine, were in the hands of Latin, that is Roman Catholic, monks, but the pilgrims who visited them were overwhelmingly from the Orthodox faith. If Russia’s aim was merely to ensure that the Turks treated the Orthodox Christians well, Britain had nothing to fear. But it seemed likely that Russian concern for the Christians and the safety of the holy places was a pretext for Russian territorial gain, in which case the safety of India must be an issue and Britain would be bound to follow its traditional pro-Turkish policy. The immediate cause of war, as in many conflicts, was the failure of diplomacy. In the spring of 1853, Prince Menshikov arrived in Constantinople, making demands which the Turks could not, or would not, meet and departing angrily in May. The tsar threatened to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia (modern Romania), two key provinces which occupied the north bank of the River Danube in order, as he said, to safeguard the rights of the Christian subjects of the sultan. So concerned were the British, that a Royal Navy squadron was moved to the Black Sea Straits, and it may be that this action convinced the Russians to occupy the two provinces in July 1853. A conference hosted by the Austrians offered a compromise, the ‘Vienna note’, which suggested that the sultan’s lands should be secure, but that Russia had the right to take an interest in the security of the sultan’s Christian subjects. Unsurprisingly, the tsar accepted but the sultan refused and the sultan’s Council declared war on Russia on 3 October 1853. The great powers of Europe had failed to convince either side to await detailed negotiation before they moved to war. The tsar’s offer to withdraw his troops from Moldavia and Wallachia came too late, and British and French involvement became increasingly likely when Russian warships destroyed some Turkish ships in the Black Sea off Sinope on 30 November. This so-called ‘massacre of Sinope’ was in direct contradiction of the tsar’s declaration that he would not pursue the war actively until all attempts at mediation were complete. Public opinion in Britain believed that the attack could have been prevented had British ships been in the Black Sea, and a British declaration of war became inevitable, although Aberdeen managed to delay the declaration until the end of March 1854. Thus a war whose causes had existed for many years finally began.

ESSAYS • 35

b) As with all wars, the status of British governments at home was strengthened when the war was going well and damaged when the news was bad. The belief that Aberdeen had been weak in trying to delay the onset of war was dissipated in a mood of patriotism and the conviction that Russia would be easy to defeat. On the other hand, there was no clear war policy. British ships were moved into the Back Sea, but what they should do, other than breaking the Russian blockade of Turkey, was not clear. The Russian navy clearly posed a threat, but the Russian naval base of Sevastopol was not placed under siege until 14 September 1854, by which time it was heavily fortified. This indecisive behaviour by Aberdeen’s government was castigated in the press, who wanted action and victories. Allied troops were not properly equipped for a siege in winter, and supplies were only taken up to the besieging troops with great difficulty. A base was established at Balaclava after the allied victory at Alma (20 September), but battle casualties were substantial. Much worse, however, were the casualties from disease. The inadequacies of the base and its water supply meant that cholera spread; the mortality rate in the British army, aside from battle casualties, rose to over 50 per cent. The Times correspondent William Howard Russell ensured that the British public knew of the disasters, and his reports were read and discussed across the country. Criticism of the government resulted in its fall. In January 1855, Palmerston became prime minister, against the wishes of the queen, who had asked first Lord Derby, then Lord Russell, then Lord Lansdowne before bowing to public opinion and calling for Palmerston. Thus the failure to prepare adequately for the war, or to conduct it in a forceful way, ensured the fall of Aberdeen. Palmerston’s appointment was followed by several improvements in the war news, none of them specifically the result of his ministry, but all enhancing his status. Tsar Nicholas I died and his successor was less aggressive in his pursuit of the war; Florence Nightingale’s stringent insistence on hygiene brought the cholera under control at the hospital at Scutari; and eventually, in September, Sevastopol fell. As the British grip on shipping in the Black Sea tightened, the siege was bound to succeed. But British troops had suffered for a year because of the failure to assault the city at the very start of hostilities. Peace was finally achieved at the Treaty of Paris in March 1856. The Russians were compelled to accept exclusion of their warships from the Black Sea and lost the international acceptance of their right to protect the Balkan Christians. British public opinion regarded this as a satisfactory outcome but there were few safeguards other than the constant presence of Royal Navy ships in the area, an expense which the country was reluctant to afford. Turkey lost territory as well, with the grant of autonomy to Moldavia and Wallachia, and this ensured that other national groups would, in turn, demand self-government. Nationalism, together with the Turkish failure to reform, ensured that the Balkans would continue to feature in international affairs in the coming years. An international commission was established to control the Danube, a move which benefited Austria more than any other nation. Britain had, apparently, achieved its stated aims. But the next few years were to show that Russia would not rest until it was again permitted use of the Black Sea, so that the region continued to raise questions with which British governments had to deal. Palmerston’s status and popularity were immeasurably enhanced by the victory, and he remained in power until 1858. On the other hand, there was little appetite for the cost of foreign adventures, and he was unable to convince Parliament to send help to Garibaldi, or to join actively in

36 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

the American Civil War. It is probable that the successful ending of the Crimean War enabled him to serve as prime minister for a few more months, no more. Policies did not change as much as might have been expected as a result of the war. The systems for dealing with the health of the army remained unreformed for many years, and Florence Nightingale was to spend the rest of her life campaigning to improve the conditions in which British servicemen were treated when injured or ill. Army supply, too, which had been a major cause of the high casualties, remained in the hands of privileged and under-audited organisations until the 1870s, and the generals continued to have a considerable amount of autonomy, which made ministerial influence and policy making very difficult. Not until the establishment of a general staff was there any real cohesion in the strategic planning of military actions.

a) b)

Could the Crimean War have been avoided? To what extent was the defeat of Russia inevitable?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Each part of this question requires you to look at both sides: in part (a), the probable outcomes of avoiding war, and whether the interested powers would have been prepared to accept these effects; and in part (b), the extent to which Russia was outmatched by the allies ranged against it. In what circumstances might Russia have won? Could they have split the French from their slightly uncomfortable alliance with Britain? Should they have reduced the demands they made on Turkey to a more acceptable level? What ever speculation you offer, based on the events as you know them, you should finish with a clearly supported answer to each part of the question.

7. The Empire and the Indian ‘Mutiny’ a) b)

How far is it true to say that the British government should have predicted the Indian ‘mutiny’? What were the results for Britain and India of the defeat of the ‘mutineers’?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) Events in India in the years leading up to the troubles of 1857 were not, in the strict sense of the word, the business of the British government. India was still under the control of the British East India Company, established in the reign of Elizabeth I and responsible for the government and defence of India, although it had been a crown agent and under some government regulation, following corruption scandals at the end of the previous century. Nevertheless, the British government cared deeply about the defence of India, and developments in and around the colony played a major part in British diplomatic and economic strategies. The British and East India Company armies in India consisted of 233,000 native troops and 40,000 British officers and men, and the British demonstrated a kind of complacent confidence in the loyalty of the sepoys and lascars. When the ‘mutiny’ began, the British component had been reduced to 23,000 because troops sent to the Crimea had not yet returned.

ESSAYS • 37

Had the British officials in India not been so complacent, they might have noticed that trouble was brewing. The year 1857 marked the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Plassey, which had established British domination in Bengal. This victory had been the start of a kind of domino effect of British acquisitions in the rest of India, which was still incomplete. The native princes resented the doctrine of ‘lapse’ by which the governor general, Lord Dalhousie, took over the administration of any kingdom which had no direct heir. Resistance to the East India Company had grown, stoked by soothsayers and prophets claiming that the British raj would only last a hundred years. The East India Company was inclined to disregard and undervalue the indigenous religions of India. While toleration existed, Christian missionaries were protected by the Company, and there was small respect for Hinduism and Islam. Indeed, some of the practices of Hinduism appeared abhorrent and attempts had been made by Dalhousie to end the practice of sati (the self-immolation of a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre). The self-satisfied confidence of Victorian Britain was certain the ‘civilised’ practices would be preferable to the peoples of India. It is therefore easy to imagine that the Company army would ignore, or fail to hear, the eddying rumours about the new cartridges being issued to the army. After all, given the class-based separation between officers and men in the nineteenth-century army, few officers would ever have loaded and fired the type of gun used by the other ranks. The bullet was enclosed in a paper cartridge case, which had to be bitten open in order to load the gun. The rumour that the cartridges were greased with animal fat spread rapidly through the army: in Muslim companies, the rumour specified pig fat; in Hindu companies, though any animal fat would have been unacceptable, the most virulent rumours specified cow fat. No attempt was made to deny the rumours. In May 1857, a mutiny began at Meerut, where European soldiers and civilians were massacred and the rebels marched to Delhi, where they declared the restoration of the Mughal Empire; the cities of Kanpur (Cawnpore) and Lucknow were also besieged. The authorities were indeed taken completely by surprise, and it was more than a year before the whole of British India was pacified and back under control. The actions taken by the British in reprisal were the more violent because they expressed a kind of shocked surprise at what had occurred. b) The results of the defeat of the mutiny were far-reaching, both for Britain and for India, and may be said to have lasted for a further century, up to and beyond the time when India achieved independence. The most direct result was the India Act of 1858, which removed India from the control of the East India Company: the president of the Board of Control in London now became secretary of state for India, while the governor now became a viceroy to confirm the government control of the great colony. The India Office in London supervised the recruitment and training of a specialist civil service for India and a network of provincial governors and magistrates. British civil servants, writers and ministers depicted themselves in the service of the Indian people and made strenuous efforts to ‘improve’ India. Drainage, efficient infrastructures and agricultural improvements are the positive side of this drive. The opening up of efficient communications across India became a priority and miles of railway were constructed with government funds. At the same time, however, the shock of the rebellion lingered for several generations. The labelling of it as a ‘mutiny’ is an indication of how little the authorities understood the deep feelings underlying the rising, and the brutal reprisals of the British troops ensured a continuing bitterness and a mutual lack of trust.

38 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

The British were also inclined to admire and promote the people from the Punjab, who had remained loyal throughout the dangerous period of 1857–8. Sikhs were already a preferred religious group: worship of an unseen God and veneration for a holy book were recognisable and familiar to administrators brought up in a Protestant tradition, and the Adi Granth specifically forbade the kind of food laws which had sparked the troubles in the first place. Sikhs became the backbone of the Indian army and, indeed, their loyalty was demonstrated in two twentieth-century world wars. In contrast, there was a tendency to mistrust other groups and a view that India could not and would not ever achieve independence from the paternal care of British administrators. Politicians of considerable stature continued to hold this view until the eve of Indian independence, 90 years after the mutiny. For Indians, on the other hand, the 1857 rising may be seen as the start of an independence movement which was to achieve the aims of the mutineers within less than a century. The lack of understanding for the feelings and beliefs of the native peoples had been confirmed in blood. The rising also demonstrated that the British were not invincible and that the great distances of India reduced the hold of the raj. Although the Indian National Congress, the main party of independence, was not founded for another 25 years, its seeds were sown in 1857–8. As education extended, the Indian middle classes were made familiar with the stories of the British Empire elsewhere, for example, a treaty had been signed with the native peoples of New Zealand which, however much violated, recognised their rights to their homeland. Such examples were influential on the growing numbers of Indians determined to achieve self-government. But the learning was not all political nor was it all damaging to the British position. India was slowly provided with the education – and the language – to enable it to compete in a global economy in the following centuries; and the influence of the British administrators, however patronising, can be recognised in the constitutional forms and institutions of what is, in the twenty-first century, the world’s largest democracy. The fact that India has also remained a friend to Britain is an indication that the scars of the mutiny were able to heal fully.

a)

In what parts of the world, and for what reasons, did the British Empire grow during this period? (30 marks)

b)

How far is it possible to discern a coherent ‘imperial policy’ in the development of the Empire in the years 1841–68?

(60 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: You might begin with a summary of the ways in which empires in general grow: by conquest or by treaty. Or you might begin with an outline of the state of the British Empire at the start of this period: that they had lost colonies in North America, but gained others at the Treaty of Vienna, 1815. Para 2: A brief consideration of the areas of growth: in Africa, expansion northwards and eastwards from Cape Colony; then further north with the discovery of diamonds in Griqualand; in China, as more ports were obtained as a result of disputes with the Chinese

ESSAYS • 39

Empire; in North America, as settlement in Canada extended westwards; in Australasia, as free settlers began to expand the early penal colonies; in India, to preserve existing holdings, which was the excuse used to annex the province of Sind in 1843. Para 3: Brief discussion of the fact that these modest increases laid the basis for the much bigger expansion which occurred in the following 40 years. b) Para 4: First of two paragraphs finding coherence in the imperial policy of the period: the expansion into North West India (now Pakistan) and the disastrous attempts to increase influence in Afghanistan were a conscious response to the perceived threat of Russia, just as was the British involvement in the Crimean War. Para 5: Similarly, the actions of the British in South Africa were designed to protect their crucial holding of Cape Colony: this was confirmed both by their treatment of the Boers, who had been permitted to move ‘out of the way’, and of the native peoples. The need to protect and assist the growth of trade can also be seen in the acquisition of Wei Hai Wei as part of the struggle to ensure that the Chinese authorities did not threaten the profits of British traders. Para 6: Less coherent was expansion which developed from the government endorsement of the actions of explorers and pioneers, particularly in Southern Africa, but also in the interior of Australia. Para 7: The government encouraged and began to subsidise emigration as an answer to economic and social problems at home (as can be seen clearly in several of the novels of Dickens) but the resultant growth of Empire was haphazard and difficult to contain; this became a particular problem wherever gold was discovered or rumoured, as in New Zealand in the 1850s. Conclusion: A pride in Empire, as demonstrated in the imperial pavilions of the Great Exhibition, points the way to the much greater government sponsorship of and interest in imperial developments of the next few decades.

8. Palmerston and foreign policy Discuss the view that Palmerston was a great and successful foreign minister.

(90 marks)

Palmerston’s aims in foreign policy were those of most British politicians: the difference was the flamboyance and panache with which he pursued those aims and proclaimed his own successes. His central conviction was that he must maintain the status of Britain in the world, both as a trading nation and as the epitome of world justice. Above all, this meant supporting the interests of British citizens and traders abroad. The extraordinary Don Pacifico affair of 1850 shows this attitude at its extreme: Don Pacifico was only by a stretch of the imagination a British citizen, having been born in Gibraltar; in Athens, his position was that of Portuguese consul. But Palmerston was determined to support his excessive claim for damages. His response may have had something to do with general British anger at the corrupt practices of the Greek government,

40 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

which had fallen, it seemed to Britain, below the standards appropriate to a country which had once been the ‘cradle of democracy’. It is also clear that his policy was made possible by the availability of British warships near Athens. Palmerston also aimed to arbitrate in international issues, using Britain’s status as a liberal and just nation as his authority. His refusal to allow the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland to be swallowed up in the structure planned by the Catholic Sonderbund, with backing from France and Austria, is a case in point. Similarly, his support for the Danish claim to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein in 1852 was based on estimations of nationality and geographical position, rather than on the comparative strengths of the Prussians and the Danes. While Britain was not in a position to interfere actively in the liberal revolutions of 1848, Palmerston made clear his support for the revolutionaries and his disapprobation of the violent crushing of the rebellions, for example in Hungary. Palmerston’s ethical views were less in evidence when the need was to safeguard British trade. Relationships with the Chinese Empire had hardly been of a high moral tone since the ‘Opium War’ had forced the Chinese to open their harbours to the trade of opium in exchange for tea. When Hong Kong traders in Guanzhou were accused by the Chinese authorities of smuggling, the British officials there adopted Palmerstonian high-handed tactics which eventually led to war and forced more concessions from the imperial government. Where Britain’s friends abroad were concerned, Palmerston was prepared to offer support beyond what was recognised as normal. His fall from power in 1858 was a result of pushing this to extremes: the Orsini plot, to assassinate Emperor Napoleon III, had clearly been hatched in Britain, but an attempt to legislate to prevent future plots of this kind was completely unacceptable to the British Parliament. It is interesting to note that, while in 1858 the Conspiracy to Murder Bill could cause the fall of a popular ministry, in 2001 such a law entered the statute book without any controversy at all. Palmerston’s aims were therefore composed of a conviction of British superiority, which attracted popular support while occasionally alarming his colleagues and queen. They developed from Britain’s strong economy and world position and, even at their most apparently reckless, were based on a clear view of what could, rather than what should, be done. Palmerston’s interest in foreign policy ensured that even when he was prime minister, the policies adopted abroad were entirely his; thus it is legitimate to consider all the policies for which he was responsible in evaluating his success. If greatness implies fame or even notoriety, Palmerston may certainly be said to have been a great foreign minister. He was known across Britain and was able to win people over by his oratory. Following his censure by the House of Lords over the Don Pacifico affair, a theatrical performance, complete with biblical quotations in Latin, won him the support of the House of Commons. It was his name that was shouted by crowds furious with the failures in the first months of the Crimean War. When he was censured over the Arrow incident, he was easily able to achieve a majority in the ensuing general election. He was seldom compelled to withdraw from positions he had taken, although he was persuaded to offer a grudging apology to the Hungarian General Haynau.

ESSAYS • 41

It would be a mistake, however, to credit him with direct responsibility for all the events linked to his name. Frequently ‘his’ policies were initiated by local officials. When the Arrow was impounded by the Chinese authorities, it was the British officials in the area who ordered the bombardment of Guanzhou. The slow rate of communications across the world ensured that Palmerston would not know what had happened until much later. He did of course endorse their actions, despite disapproval at home, since the defence of British interests abroad was his essential creed. As far as the Don Pacifico case was concerned, his reaction was dependent on expediency. Had there not been a British naval squadron in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is unlikely that the blockade of Piraeus would have been enforced. Although Palmerston’s reputation is that of maintaining British superiority, he preferred where possible to work in coalition with foreign powers. In the fighting which followed the Arrow incident and culminated in the Treaty of Tientsin, Palmerston was determined to maintain the support and backing of the French, and during the Crimean War he ensured that the allies worked together, despite the mistrust in which the generals of the coalition held one another. Personal feelings were allowed to influence British policy from time to time. Palmerston’s fury at Guizot’s manipulation of the issue of the Spanish marriages was revealed in his speedy recognition of the overthrow of King Louis Philippe in 1848; and his admiration for Kossuth and Garibaldi were only contained by the firm restraint exercised by his cabinet colleagues. When the war between the States broke out in the USA, Palmerston was clearly delighted at the possibility that the union might collapse, and his obvious support for the Confederate South might have led to war had the prince consort not intervened in the Trent affair. It may be suggested that a truly great minister would not have allowed his own opinions so to dominate the formulation of policy. The success of his policies may have been dependent not on his skill, but on the overall strength and status of Britain. Certainly, throughout his time of power and influence, Britain was able to achieve most of the desired aims abroad. Although Liberalism did not dominate Europe as a result of the 1848 Revolutions, British influence may have been significant in moderating the reprisals taken in the Italian states. The Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris (1856) ensured that Russia was not, for the next few years, a threat to British trade and communications with India, while at the same time, the Turkish Empire was able to survive for a few more decades and thus safeguard the Eastern Mediterranean. Across the Empire, territory was acquired rather than lost, and the outcome of the ‘mutiny’ in India was to enable the British government to complete its gradual replacement of the East India Company in the administration of India and to establish an efficient and responsible government there. Overall, as far as the British were concerned, success could be measured by the extent to which British prestige abroad was maintained at minimum cost to the exchequer and by the uninterrupted flow of British trade across the world. By both these criteria, Palmerston’s period of power can be seen as successful, and he himself may be recognised as one of the most notable of British foreign ministers.

42 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

a) b)

What is meant by the term ‘gunboat diplomacy’? (15 marks) To what extent is this an appropriate description of Palmerston’s foreign policy? (15 marks)

It is important to explain as well as define the phrase in part (a). This gives you an opportunity to compare the strength of the navy as compared to the army, which made the methods of Palmerston more comprehensible. Part (b) can be best answered by using examples of foreign policies which can be described as ‘gunboat diplomacy’ to explain the implications of the method and then by using some examples of more orthodox foreign policy to evaluate the extent to which the high-handed approach was typical of Palmerston.

9. Britain and Europe a) b)

What were Britain’s interests in Europe during this period? In what ways and to what extent did events abroad affect the policies and success of British governments?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) Britain did not feel part of Europe despite her participation in the optimistically named Congress ‘System’ following the defeat of France in 1815. With an army of modest size, it was not in Britain’s interest to become entangled in European conflicts. Britain’s main interest was to ensure that no single power dominated the continent, and the term ‘the Concert of Europe’ was applied to the ideal position of harmony and balance. The residual dislike and distrust of France, which had led Britain to insist on a free and neutral Belgium, took the form of a hope that a stable constitutional monarchy could be permanently established; but disputes continued, with Britain taking the opposite side to France over the issue of the Swiss Federation in 1847 and the question of the Austrian occupation of Cracow. The most serious dispute with France came over the Spanish marriages, as it seemed that the increased French influence over the residual Spanish Empire would disturb the equilibrium of the colonial world. Palmerston’s anger was seen in his willingness to accept the 1848 overthrow of King Louis Philippe of France. Britain’s responses to the 1848 revolutions were similarly dependent on what was perceived as being in Britain’s interest. Although there was a sentimental interest in Italian ‘liberation’ from Austria, it was important that the Mediterranean and its trade should not be disrupted; Britain therefore failed to support the Piedmontese in north Italy and support for Garibaldi’s rebels in Sicily was insufficient to change the eventual outcome. The need for a strong Austria as a counterweight to Russia meant that Britain could not support the Hungarian independence struggle, although this did not prevent Palmerston making his opinion clear in his reluctance to apologise to General Haynau for the attack on him by a crowd of British workmen. In contrast, he would have arranged a meeting with the leader of the Hungarian revolutionaries, Kossuth, had he not been forbidden to do so. In pursuit of a ‘balance’ between nations, Britain might support the Danes in their claim to the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein, which they were awarded in 1852, but there was little British benefit in supporting Liberal revolutions across Europe.

ESSAYS • 43

Prussia was a country with which Britain expected to have a warm relationship. As a member of the coalition which had defeated Bonaparte, Prussia was deemed to be a stabilising buffer to the east of France and to the west of Russia. The links with the royal family of Britain were strengthened by the marriage of the princess royal to the heir to the Prussian throne, and there was little sense that the desire to bring the small states of Germany closer together would, under Bismarck in 1871, create a new and dangerous imbalance in Europe. Britain’s main concerns, however, lay further east. The fear of Russian expansion affected many areas of policy. Russia might be a threat to the British route to India, which lay through the eastern Mediterranean and overland across Egypt to the Red Sea; this meant that Austria should not be stripped of her empire by Liberal revolution and, above all, that Turkey should be maintained regardless of the despotic nature of the sultan’s government. The need to prevent Russian encroachment into the Mediterranean saw Britain involved in just the kind of land war that she was least equipped to fight, in the Crimea. Underlying all other attitudes and policies was the key British belief that trade must come first. Throughout this period, Britain’s lead in industrialisation meant that British goods dominated the markets of Europe. The aim was to encourage other nations to adopt the free trade policies which would assure Britain’s domination, but even with tariffs to protect their home markets, European countries could not compete, in cheapness or quality, with British manufactured goods. Only towards the end of the century did Britain face real industrial competition from Germany and France. b) Overseas affairs had little effect on the standing and popularity of governments in Britain. Provided trade and the economy were able to operate without interruption from events abroad, there was little concern for the rights and wrongs of foreign disputes. The government may have been sufficiently alarmed by the swelling revolutionary mood across Europe to react forcefully to the Chartist demonstrations of 1848, but there was no real fear that Britain was on the verge of joining the European Liberal movement. The Crimean War was a matter of concern to governments and to the popular press, and the disastrous news coming from the army camps of the region led to the fall of Aberdeen’s government. On the other hand, it was his own party which took over the government at his resignation, and the policies of governments were not affected by his fall. It could be argued that it was not the declaration of war which had brought about Aberdeen’s fall, but his failure to bring it to a rapid and successful conclusion so that British trade could resume its normal channels. The army reforms which, the war had demonstrated, were so desperately needed were not forthcoming until many years after the end of the war, since the expenditure of taxpayers’ money would have been involved. Relationships with the many states of Germany were of course affected by the royal family’s links in that part of Europe. The state of Hanover was ruled by the queen’s male relatives, since its constitution did not allow female rulers. The refusal of Parliament to allow the elector of Hanover to be named regent while the queen was in the dangerous hours of childbirth soured relationships, and Hanover ceased to be important to Britain. The royal marriages with Prussia and Denmark produced a passing interest in the popular press and in Parliament, but this interest was

44 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

centred more on whether the public purse would have to bear the costs of the dowry and other expenses, than on the effect on the conduct of foreign policy. The pride in Empire which was to be a feature of the latter part of the century was in its early stages; but British governments could be expected to take action to preserve imperial trade routes and to maintain the territories around the world which Britain claimed. Some of the more extreme responses to foreign events can be explained by this wish to demonstrate the dominance of Britain as a world power. It may seem strange to risk alienating Greece, when the growing threat of Russia might have predicated close friendship with the only Christian nation in the region, but the Don Pacifico affair of 1850 was greeted with approbation by the mass of the population. Palmerston was a hero of the flourishing popular press and therefore we might expect his policies abroad to have had a major impact on political developments at home. There were certainly times when his decisions or his plans outraged his colleagues and his queen, and his resignation in 1858 was accelerated by the Parliamentary dispute over his Conspiracy to Murder Bill. But with the fluid nature of leadership and politics during this period of changing ministries, such a fall from power was neither devastating to his career nor very long lasting. Indeed, there were times when, although he angered his parliamentary colleagues, his actions embodied the feelings of the people. His treatment of Haynau and his admiration for Garibaldi and Kossuth are examples of this harmony with popular opinion. Following his death, British foreign policy became less colourful and a willingness to compromise became apparent; for example, in the disputes with the United States of America in which compromise and conciliation were to be seen. Nevertheless, the key aims of British policy were pursued by the ministries which followed Palmerston, albeit by slightly different methods. The key attributes of the years 1846–68 were the growing prosperity of Britain and the expansion of its land holdings abroad. Provided these two developments were allowed to continue unhindered, governments at home were deemed to have fulfilled their duties. In a nation, and a period, which objected to a high level of taxation, foreign adventures were unlikely to be popular; but they would not be seen as significant markers of government success or failure unless the outcomes were totally disastrous.

a) b)

Why did Britain take so little interest in the growing strength of Prussia? (30 marks) How far is it true to say that Britain ‘did not need’ the friendship of European powers in this period? (60 marks)

A brief account of the ‘growing strength of Prussia’ must be a part of answer (a), but then you need to focus on the reasons for Britain’s apparent indifference: or was it approval? The royal family’s links are possibly less important than residual anti-French feelings, and an admiration of Prussian economic and bureaucratic efficiency. Part (b) is phrased in a tendentious way, and you should make use of this in your answer: how might the friendship of European powers have been useful to Britain: on what occasions was it in fact useful? And on what occasions did Britain demonstrate her ability to ‘go it alone’?

SOURCES • 45

Part 3: Sources A range of sources has been grouped into two sections, with a variety of questions attached to each. You should find it possible to adapt and make use of each set of sources to allow you to practise the pattern of source questions adopted in the examinations for which you are preparing.

1. Parliamentary reform: demand and provision Source A: Report of the Select Committee on Petitions, by Mr Thornely, read by the Clerk at the table

The Hon. Member for Nottingham [Feargus O’Connor] stated, on presenting the petition, that 5,706,000 names were attached to it; but upon the most careful examination of the number of signatures in the Committee room, and at which examination thirteen law stationers were engaged upwards of seventeen hours, with the person ordinarily employed in counting the numbers appended to petitions . . . the number of signatures has been ascertained to be 1,975,496. It is further evident to your Committee, that on numerous consecutive sheets, the signatures are in one and the same handwriting. Your Committee also observed the names of distinguished individuals attached to the petition, who can scarcely be supposed to concur in its prayer: among which occurs the name of Her Majesty as Victoria Rex, April 1, FM Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, etc., etc. Your Committee have also observed in derogation of the value of such petition, the insertion of names which are obviously fictitious, such as ‘No Cheese’, ‘Pug Nose’, ‘Flat Nose’. There are others included which your Committee does not hazard offending the House and the dignity and decency of their own proceedings by recording. Source B: Letter from Baron Stockmar to Prince Albert, 22 January 1854

The Reform Act, while it gave to the democratic element a preponderance in the Constitution over the aristocratic, removed its centre of gravity from the Upper to the Lower house, and thereby threw all political life into a state of feverish excitement and oscillation, which was very apt to have proved fatal to it In this conjuncture, the healing force of the self-adjusting principle was demonstrated, all the more that Peel proved himself an honest and skilful physician . . . Whether the Minister, whether the Upper House was ever consciously aware, what a safeguard against the wild power of democracy had grown up on the moral purity of the Queen, I do not know. Source C: The Times, 2 July 1867, p. 9

It is wilful blindness to shut our eyes to the fact that the transfer of representation from small to more populous places is certain though it may be retarded; and we neglect all experience if we refuse to remember that overstrained attempts to obstruct inevitable changes always produce more sweeping alterations.

46 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68 Source D: Part of the Representation of the People Act, 1867

Every man shall in and after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty eight be entitled to be registered as a voter and, when registered, to vote for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a borough, who is qualified as follows, that is to say 1. 2.

3.

is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity is on the last day of July in any year and has during the whole of the preceding twelve calendar months been any inhabitant Occupier, as owner or tenant, of any dwelling house within the borough and has during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary occupier . . . to all rates . . . made for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises. [or] . . . as a Lodger has occupied in the same borough separately and as sole tenant for the twelve months preceding the last day of July in any year the same lodgings, such lodgings being part of one and the same dwelling house, and of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of Ten Pounds or upwards. THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a) b) c)

d)

Study source D. How far and how fairly was the franchise extended by this act? (10) In what ways can the study of parliamentary records such as sources A and D be of use to the historian? (25) How far do sources A, B and C confirm the view that the ‘ruling classes’ believed that the ordinary people should not be trusted with political power? (25) ‘Wide ranging but still insufficient.’ Consider this view of the 1867 Parliamentary Reform Act in the light of all the sources and of your own knowledge. (60)

ANSWERS

a) The extension of the franchise by the 1867 Parliamentary Reform Act was considerable, but patchy. The effect of the act was to enfranchise almost all men who lived in borough constituencies. Exceptions were men who continued to live with their parents and young men who lived in works hostels rather than being tenants on their own. The act was not, however, equitable. The county constituencies were not similarly treated, so that working men who lived in shire constituencies, even industrial workers such as coal miners, were not enfranchised. Redistribution was not seriously undertaken, so that rural areas were over-represented: a situation particularly noticeable in Ireland, where the drop in population was not matched by a reduction in representation. Although few mentioned it as yet, there was also no enfranchisement of women, even if they were borough householders or £10 lodgers in their own right. These inequalities would be addressed over the next 60 years. b) Source A is a report from a Select Committee to the House of Commons, and it can be read just as it was read aloud at the table of the House. Source D consists of extracts from the 1867

SOURCES • 47

Reform Act. Thus, an historian can make use of the information available to MPs at the time. The report is careful to establish the credentials of the Select Committee, the people involved in scrutinising the petition were skilled – as law stationers – in deciphering handwriting of all kinds and enough man-hours were expended to do a thorough job. The total number of signatures, and the various reasons for supposing many of them to have been fraudulent, are clearly set down in the report, so that historians can judge for themselves. It is also interesting to note that Mr Thornely has imposed a sort of censorship of the more obscene or vulgar signatures in order to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of the House. Source D is similarly useful, since it provides the precise terminology of the act. The source enables the historian to see the care with which inclusions and exclusions were listed and the need to refer to earlier legislation (as, for example, with the reference to legal incapacities not identified here). Studying such sources is a part of the mainstream activity of historians, providing as it does evidence of the actual mechanisms of government as well as the specific regulations and decisions being made. On the other hand, difficult and technical terms are not explained, so historians must come to this kind of material with some existing knowledge. The reference to ‘member or members’, for example, makes sense only if we remember that the earlier reforms had removed one of the two MPs from some small boroughs. Similarly, in the report, some background knowledge is required to understand why ‘FM Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, etc., etc.’ might not have been signatories to the Chartist petition. Finally, it is worth noting that this kind of report was only available from the beginning of the nineteenth century, and, though in receipt of government subsidies from 1855 onwards, the reports were unofficial throughout the period until 1909. c) All three of these sources suggest that reform of some kind is unavoidable, though at the same time they regard it as undesirable. The description of the signatories to the Chartist petition, while apparently factual, makes clear the contempt of the committee. The references to many signatures in the same handwriting, to the forged signatures of notable people, as well as the clearly fictional names used to boost the numbers, all combine to undervalue a petition which, nevertheless, had hundreds of thousands of authentic signatures. Baron Stockmar, in writing to Prince Albert, refers to the democratic principle, although the electorate following the 1832 Reform Act remained both small and non-representative. His view is that, in removing the weight of power from the House of Lords to the House of Commons, the act could have been disastrous had it not been for the sober good sense of Robert Peel and the ‘moral purity of the Queen’. His reference to the wild power of democracy bears little relationship to the respectable, property-owning middle classes as enfranchised by the 1832 Act. The brief extract from The Times of July 1867 is concerned more with redistribution than with the franchise. The view of The Times is that these changes are ‘certain’ and ‘inevitable’. The comment regards it as unavoidable that larger towns and more densely populated areas should be represented more fairly and the less inhabited areas should lose representation to make this possible. The warning, that if changes are delayed, more serious and dangerous events may be the outcome, suggests that extending the democratic system in Britain was desirable less for its own sake than to avoid violence and unrest. Thus none of these sources expresses confidence in the mass of the population which was unfranchised by seeking the vote, while The Times sums up the views implied by Stockmar that these changes are bound to come and must be ameliorated by whatever means can be found.

48 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

d) The 1867 Parliamentary Reform Act was certainly a wide-ranging statute, far more extensive than had originally been planned or had been discussed in the years since the 1832 Act. The act as it finally emerged was a very different piece of legislation from the one first put before the House of Commons. There had been no suggestion in the early debates that most male industrial workers should be enfranchised, and yet that was the effect of the act. It did not, it is true, provide the terms which the Chartists had demanded in their petition, which is the subject of source A, but it did enfranchise almost all the adult men in the borough constituencies. Providing a man was responsible for his own home, or lodged in a sufficiently substantial property, and provided he was of the right age and not disqualified in law, he could now vote, as outlined in source D. It was certainly more wide-ranging than the late prince consort would have wished, judging by the views of his close adviser expressed in source B, although The Times recognised in its comments (source C) that there would have to be further reforms. The extent to which the act was still insufficient can be seen, first, in The Times’ comments. There was still great imbalance between town and country, the more marked in areas where industrial work was being done in county constituencies, so that the politically aware and organised coal miners did not have the electoral rights now available to the iron and textile workers whose homes were in boroughs. This imbalance can be explained by the fact that the act was the work of a Conservative government. They were willing to extend the franchise in the large boroughs which were, on the whole, Liberal strongholds provided that their own county heartlands were protected. It is significant that it was to be a Liberal government which, within 20 years, extended the householder and lodger franchise to the counties. Similarly, the country areas were over-represented, even after this act, compared to the large and growing industrial towns. Second, the act was insufficient in that it offered no protection, other than the law courts, to those whose livelihood, or accommodation, was in the hands of men who might want to influence their vote. The inevitable sequel was achieved within five years, when the Secret Ballot Act was passed in 1872 to prevent undue pressure being put upon voters. The secret ballot was one of the demands of the Chartists, but not the first to be achieved, since the abolition of property qualifications had been brought about in 1858. On the other hand, it was still almost impossible for working men, enfranchised in 1867, to stand for parliament since MPs were unpaid, ensuring that only those of independent means could aspire to the Commons. The earlier versions of the 1867 Act had included various attempts to ensure that only respectable and responsible working men were enfranchised by suggesting a range of ‘fancy franchises’. The remains of these attempts may be seen in the reference to voters needing to pay rates of one kind or another. But the act as passed showed a major step towards age becoming the main qualification, as Gladstone had suggested during the debates. It would be another 50 years before age became the sole qualification, but there were already voices raised in favour of this simple franchise. The rights of women were not entirely disregarded during the debates on this legislation. Few followed John Stuart Mill’s lead in accepting that gender should be irrelevant, not least because women might have been in a majority had they been enfranchised on the same terms as men in the boroughs. The reasons for refusing them the vote were not clearly enunciated, after all, women worked in almost all industries and were organised into trade unions; at the upper end of society women were breaking into university education and into the professions; they were householders

SOURCES • 49

and ratepayers. It would, however, be anachronistic to suggest that there was a groundswell of opinion, even among women, in favour of the female franchise, so it is not surprising that this act, failing, as it did, to enfranchise all adult men, should also fail to consider the question of female suffrage. The 1867 Reform Act was surprisingly extensive and a major step on the road to the kind of democracy regarded as normal today. It was to have wide-ranging effects, in terms of further legislation, for instance in education and in the regulation of elections. For its period, and for a Conservative government, it was radical in the extreme. Its effect was to throw into sharp relief the injustice of denying the vote to large groups in society, once the mass of the male urban workers had been enfranchised. As a result, further reforms were bound to follow, and future parliamentary reforms would deal much more with practicalities than with issues of principle, since the principle of mass suffrage had been, almost accidentally, established by Disraeli’s act.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a)

b) c)

d) e)

Study source B. Explain in your own words what Stockmar meant when he wrote that the Reform Act ‘gave to the democratic element a preponderance in the Constitution over the aristocratic’. (3) Study source A. What indications does the report of the Select Committee provide of the fraudulent nature of the Chartist petition? (5) Study sources B and D. How far does source D indicate that ‘the wild power of democracy’ was strengthened by the 1867 Parliamentary Reform Act? (5) Compare the value to the historian of newspaper comments such as source C and personal letters such as Source B. (5) By use of these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which the 1867 Reform Act both surprised and pleased different groups in society. (12)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE A a) b) c)

How does source A help to explain why the Chartist petition of 1848 failed? To what extent had the aims of the Chartists been met by the end of the nineteenth century? Which groups were demanding further parliamentary reform in the years up to 1867 and to what extent were they satisfied by the Reform Act passed in that year?

(5) (7)

(18)

50 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

2. The conduct of foreign affairs Source E: Gladstone, colonial secretary in 1846, on colonies

The multiplication of colonies at the other end of the world must at all times be a matter of serious consideration; but especially at a time when we have already land infinite to defend that we cannot occupy, people to reduce to order whom we have not been able to keep in friendly relations, and questions in so many departments of government to manage, the discussion of which has been found embarrassing at home, and which appear to be thought fully equal in the demands they make to any energies which the Executive Government is able to apply to them. Source F: Palmerston’s view on how to deal with revolutionaries

Separate, by reasonable concessions, the moderate from the exaggerated, content the former by fair concessions and get them to assist in resisting the insatiable demands of the latter. If Metternich would only leave people a little alone, he would find his crop of revolutionaries . . . soon die away on the stalk. Source G: Memorandum from the queen to Lord John Russell, 12 August 1850 (NB underlinings as in original)

With reference to the conversation which the queen had with Lord John Russell the other day . . . she thinks it right in order to prevent any mistake for the future, shortly to explain what it is she expects from her foreign secretary. She requires (1) That he will distinctly state what he proposes in a given case, in order that the queen may know as distinctly to what she has given her royal sanction; (2) having once given her sanction to a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the minister; such an act she must consider as failure in sincerity towards the crown and justly to be visited by her constitutional right of dismissing that minister. She expects to be kept informed of what passes between him and the foreign ministers, before important decisions are taken based upon that intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches in good time and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their contents before they must be sent off. Source H: Letter from the queen to the Earl of Derby, 26 May 1866 (NB underlinings as in original)

. . . she has gone through such anxiety and worry this winter and spring and Doctor Jenner thinks it absolutely necessary that she should have some complete change of air and scene; she is therefore going on the 13th June for ten days only to Balmoral, the loss of her usual spring visit being considered so very detrimental to her health. Hitherto that short change has kept her from suffering seriously from the constant wear and tear of anxiety which since December 1861 she has been exposed to.

SOURCES • 51 Source I: A modern historian explains why Germany was allowed to unify under Bismarck

In terms of relative strength, Prussia was in a far sounder position in 1861 than at any time since 1815. Concerted action against Bismarck was also out of the question. England was on bad terms with France, Russia and Austria. Russia was on bad terms with England and Austria. Napoleon III and Russia were on good terms with each other but on bad terms with everybody else: and both were concerned to change, not to maintain, the European system as it existed in 1862; Napoleon III was still in favour of destroying what remained of the 1815 Settlement and Alexander II was solely concerned with destroying the Peace of Paris. THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) b) c) d)

e)

Explain briefly the identities of Metternich (source F), Napoleon III (Source I) and Alexander II (Source I). Use your own knowledge to explain the relationships in Europe outlined in source I. Study source G. What actions of the Queen’s Foreign Secretary had prompted this letter? How can personal letters and memoranda such as sources G and H assist historians to understand the processes of government in the mid-nineteenth century? Study sources E and F and use your own knowledge. To what extent was British foreign policy influenced and affected by developments at home?

(3) (5) (5)

(5)

(12)

ANSWERS

a) Prince Metternich had been the foreign minister of the Austrian Empire since 1809. He was committed to maintaining the Empire exactly as it had been in the past and making no concessions to the forces of nationalism and Liberalism. He fell from power as a result of the revolutions of 1848; Napoleon III, emperor of France, had been elected president of France in 1848 and had made himself emperor after a coup d’état in 1851. Alexander II of Russia was known as the ‘Liberator’, for his limited attempts to reform the social system of Russia, including ending serfdom. He had come to the throne during the Crimean War and had signed the Treaty of Paris to end a war which was seriously damaging his country’s economy. b) Seaman’s contention is that Prussia was strong in itself and because of the divisions between other European nations. Prussia’s internal strength derived from the balance maintained between the conservative hierarchies, in particular the army, and the ‘liberal’ constitution established after the dramatic years of 1848. The king, Frederick William, had the knack of making but not fulfilling promises, and William I, who took over the administration in 1858, was determined not to allow liberalism to develop in Prussia. An active and successful foreign policy was an effective counterweight. Abroad, Prussia’s most serious problem had always been the strength of Russia. Thanks

52 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

to the Crimean War, this was no longer a threat; besides, the Russian government was so determined to reverse the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris that they were bound to antagonise Britain. Meanwhile, Austria was also weakened: first by the continuing threat (as Austria perceived it) of Russian influence on the Austrian southern and eastern borders and Britain’s failure to provide adequate support; and, second, by the confusion in the home government which had followed the fall of Metternich. France’s new emperor, Napoleon III, had befriended Russia after the end of their antagonism over the Crimea, but issues in Poland were threatening this entente. Britain’s attempts to withdraw from European commitments while at the same time exercising influence where her interests were involved had the effect of angering Austria, France and Russia. The marriage ties between the British and Prussian royal families may also have helped to ensure that British interference would be slight, or at least benign. c) The letter is dated August 1850 and the particular issue which had so annoyed the queen was the Don Pacifico affair. Palmerston had ordered the British fleet to occupy the port of Piraeus until Pacifico’s overstated claim for damages was met. The opposition motion criticising this action was resoundingly defeated after a titanic speech by Palmerston in the House of Lords. This was not the only event annoying the queen, however: Palmerston had frequently failed to send her foreign office papers (which it was her constitutional right to examine and comment upon). He had gone against her wishes over the 1848 revolution in France, recognising the new government while she was still eager to befriend Louis Philippe, the deposed king. Similarly, he supported the Danes over Prussian claims to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, while the queen clearly favoured Prussia. He had sent inappropriate instructions to the ambassador in Madrid, leading him to be dismissed from his post. The strong rebuke issued in August had little effect on Palmerston, In the autumn, when the Austrian General Haynau was manhandled by the mob, the queen was infuriated to find that Palmerston’s dispatch, which failed to express any real regret to the Austrian government, had been sent without her seeing it. In December 1851, he was eventually removed from power for recognising the imperial title of Napoleon III without informing or consulting either the queen or the cabinet. d) These two sources both come directly from the queen and demonstrate the substantial part played by Victoria in government. The first was read aloud in the House of Commons, to the fury of Palmerston, and demonstrated clearly the extent to which he was failing to carry out his obligations to the head of state. The queen was entitled to know his intended actions in advance of his carrying them out; she should see papers and dispatches in good time for her to form opinions on them; he was not permitted to change the content of letters and dispatches once she had approved it; and she expected him to report back to her when he had meetings with the representatives of foreign countries. While this memorandum provides a clear summary of the queen’s constitutional position and opinions, nevertheless, the career of Palmerston indicates that her influence was less than she might hope. He continued to behave in the same high-handed way regardless of her complaints. The second of the sources, again in the queen’s distinctive and emphatic style, shows her need to justify her absence from the public scene. Five years after the death of Albert, referred to obliquely in the last sentence, Victoria is determined to get away from London and invokes the opinion of her physician, the distinguished Dr Jenner, to justify her intentions. It is still the custom that the prime minister is informed of the monarch’s intended movements during the year.

SOURCES • 53

Both these sources indicated the participation of the monarch in government and show the style in which Queen Victoria communicated with her ministers. They can, however, only illuminate one aspect of the government of Britain under its constitutional monarchy. e) Foreign policy during these years was influenced partly by developments at home. Gladstone’s comments were made during his period as chancellor of the exchequer, when the issue of defence spending was a matter of contention. This was a period when public expenditure never reached as much as 10 per cent of the gross national product (GNP). To collect more tax in order to protect distant and unfriendly possessions was against Gladstone’s most deeply held views. At the same time, the establishment of free trade as Britain’s policy meant that trade with British colonies was not necessarily more attractive than trade with foreign countries, or the holdings of others, such as the countries of Latin America. Thus Britain would pursue non-interventionist policies wherever possible, whether in the Empire or in general foreign policy, for reasons of economy. Where British interests were involved, Britain would take moderate action; for example, informal support for the Confederate States in the American Civil War, since the availability of cheap cotton was at stake. Similarly, as source F indicates, attitudes to radical groups abroad were bound to be formed partly by views at home. In Britain, the troubles of 1848 had been contained and limited. The Chartist demonstration had collapsed in ridicule, and Ireland, still recovering from the famine of 1846, had been unable to pose a real threat. Thus Palmerston felt entitled to comment that Metternich’s rejection of even the mildest reforms was likely to lead to trouble, since in Britain mild reforms had had the effect of ‘taming’ the wilder radical views. Peace and tranquillity at home might have offered an impulse to foreign adventure, but for British governments, economy was a more important factor. As far as other European conflicts were concerned, British governments might comment, but they would not expend revenue in intervening unless British interests were directly affected. On the other hand, developments abroad also dictated, or at least influenced, British policies. The possession of an increasing area of India meant that policies towards the eastern Mediterranean and the threat of Russia, would be affected. Even before the building of the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean had been the key to British access to India; therefore the Middle East was of concern and Britain was prepared to go to war to prevent Russian expansion in this area. The Crimean War was the result of the need to protect India. Within a very few years, India had to be protected against some of its own soldiers. The ‘mutiny’ came as a terrible shock to people at home who had assumed, if they thought about it at all, that the peoples of India were enjoying the civilising effect of British domination. The loss of British lives was not something which was associated with British rule in India. Further east, the ‘treaty ports’ of China were crucial to the steady supply of tea to the British market, a supply which had already been defended in the earlier ‘opium’ wars. Thus it is not surprising that Palmerston was prepared to use force to deal with any threat to Hong Kong. When the Empire was in need of defence, either directly or indirectly, British government was prepared to do what it had to. But the wish to keep taxation to a minimum was central to all policies; and without conscription, or an acceptable way to recruit to the Royal Navy, world-wide aggressive policies were impossible. Thus foreign policies were reactive rather than proactive and were as limited as possible.

54 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET. a) b) c) d)

Study source I. How complete a summary does L.C.B. Seaman give of Britain’s status in Europe? What light does source H shed on the potential difficulties in carrying out the instructions laid out in source G? Study source F. From your own knowledge, give examples of Palmerston’s attitudes to foreign revolutionaries. Use these sources and your own knowledge to consider the view that Britain’s foreign policy during this period was consistent, regardless of changes in government.

(10) (25) (25)

(60)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE F a) b) c)

What reasons does Gladstone give to explain why imperialism was a dangerous policy to put forward? For what reasons and in which parts of the world did Britain gain colonies between 1846 and 1868? To what extent did Britain’s overseas empire prove to be ‘more of a cost than a benefit’ during these years?

(5) (7) (18)

Part 4: Historical skills 1. Research and discussion about the royal family A ‘family tree’ is a traditional way of recording information about relationships and marriages. This exercise gives you an opportunity to make use of a genealogical table in two ways: 1. 2.

to record information resulting from your research to work out connections and make deductions from the information stored.

(With traditional dynastic tables, it was always customary to put the male offspring to the left of the table, in age order, followed by the females, also in age order, and this has been done here) You should do this work with a partner so that you can discuss your findings. •

Copy the incomplete family tree.

_________ _________ (b. 1844 d. 1900) m. Grand Duchess Marie of Russia

Arthur, Duke of Connaught (b. 1850 d. ____ ) m. Princess Louise of Prussia

British Royal family also Princess Maud m. King Haakon VII of Norway

Margaret m. _________ _________

Leopold, Duke of Albany (b. 1853 d. ____ ) m. Princess Helen of Waldeck

Royal family of Schleswig-Holstein

Helena (b. 1846 d. ____) m. Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

others Mountbatten family

_________ (b. 1843 d. ____ ) m. Grand Duke Louis of Hesse

Elizabeth m. Phillip, Duke of II Edinburgh (1952 → )

Prince m. Princess Andrew Alice of Greece

Kaiser William II of Germany

Victoria (b. 1840 d. ____) m. _________ _________

others Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha m. Princess Victoria of Schleswigothers Holstein

Marie Victoria Beatrice others m. m. m. Ferdinand, Grand Duke Alfonso, King of of Hesse Prince of Romania Spain

Edward VII 1901–1910 (b _____) m. _________ _________

Victoria m. Prince Albert (1837–1901) of Saxe-Coburg Gotha (d. ____ )

Figure 2.5 Family tree of the descendants of Queen Victoria – incomplete for use in historical skills exercise

others

_________ (b. 1848 d. ____ ) m. John, Duke of Argyll

_________ m. King Alfonso XIII of Spain

Beatrice (b. ____ d. ____ ) m. Prince Henry of Battenburg

56 • AT HOME AND ABROAD, 1846–68

•

• • •

Fill in the gaps (marked __________) with as much information as you can find: the Internet has literally thousands of websites about Queen Victoria to help you. Remember to make a note of which websites or books have been useful in your research. Add any other dynastic information you can find. Compile a list of the countries connected to the British royal family by marriage or descent. Are there any occasions when these links affected British foreign policy? Queen Victoria was a carrier of the disease haemophilia, which is normally carried by females but affects males. Identify which of her children and descendants might have carried, or suffered from, the disease and then research to find out which ones did.

2. Europe between 1846 and 1868 Make a copy of the map of Europe. Using the Internet or an historical atlas: • •

Name the countries as they were in 1846, and notice how many areas were different from the modern map. Identify the countries which were affected by the 1848 revolutions.

Figure 2.6 Map of Europe in 1846 – blank for use in historical skills exercise

North Sea

Black Sea

Mediterranean Sea

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 57

• •

Identify the countries whose royal families were linked to Britain’s by marriage. Mark the area affected by the Crimean War, including Sevastopol, Balaclava and Scutari; notice what problems the British had in supplying their troops.

References for Chapter 2 1. Cecil Woodham Smith, Queen Victoria, Her Life and Times 1819–1861, Constable and Co., London, 1975, p. 357 2. The Times, 27 June 1850 3. Quoted in John K. Walton, Disraeli, Routledge, London, 1990, p. 37 4. John Lowe, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 55 5. John Lowe, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 67 6. Robert Pearce and Roger Stearn, Government and Reform in Britain 1815–1918, Hodder and Stoughton Educational, London, 1994, p. 56 7. Bible, I. Samuel, ch. 22 vv. 1–2 8. Quoted in Cecil Woodham Smith, Queen Victoria, Her Life and Times 1819–1861, Constable and Co., London, 1975, p. 368 9. Neville Kirk, Change, Continuity and Class, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998, p. 49 10. Quoted in Asa Briggs, The Age of Improvement, Longman, Green and Co., London, 1959, p. 409

Sources A. Hansard 3/XCVIII/284–301 B. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 63 C. The Times, 2 July 1867, p. 9 D. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre Spottiswoode, London, 1956, pp. 181–8 E. Quoted in Norman McCord, British History 1815–1906, OUP, Oxford, 1991, pp. 205–6 F. Quoted in L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, p. 44 G. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 71 H. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 85 I. L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, pp. 99–100

and

and

and and

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

The Age of the Railways: Transport and the Economy, 1846–1918

60 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

This chapter traces the important changes to the economy of Britain during the period. The most dramatic change was the increase in speed and efficiency of transport, but other developments affected every aspect of the industrial and agricultural life of Britain, and these were to have profound effects at all levels of British society.

Historical background The railways Coal Iron and steel Textiles Was there a depression in the 1870s? Overseas investment Retail Population Agriculture Chemical industries Finance and banking Social conditions

Essays 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The decline of the canals The development of the railways Financing the railways The impact of the railways Women in industry Railways and foreign policy British exports The depression of the 1870s and 1880s Urbanisation

Sources 1. 2.

Troubles and advances in the development of the railways The problem of foreign competition

Skills 1. 2.

Role play Making sense of numbers

THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918 • 61

Chronology 1846 1847 1848 1851 1853 1854 1857 1860 1861 1863 1865 1870 1872 1873 1879 1880 1881 1887 1888 1889 1893 1899 1899– 1901 1902 1904 1909 1909 1914– 1918

1920

Repeal of the Corn Laws, confirming Britain as a ‘free trade’ economy Institution of Mechanical Engineers established Cambridge established a Faculty of Natural Sciences; Oxford did so in 1852 The Crimean War began and saw the use of railways to supply the armies Smallpox vaccination of infants compulsory Cardwell’s Railway Act Bank crisis Metropolitan Gas Act passed Civil War began in the USA, reducing the availability of raw cotton First Alkali Act: first attempt to deal with air pollution Transatlantic cable link laid First all-metal bicycle patented Mines Regulation Act limited boys under 16 to 54 hours per week, which in effect cut the hours of all workers in the pits. First railway carriage lavatory Worst year of the 1870s agricultural depression First refrigerated meat arrived in Britain from Australia First electric power station, at Godalming, Surrey; also commercial production of electric light bulbs began Coal Mines Regulation Act Royal Commission on the railways Technical Institutions Act First female factory inspector appointed First international radio message Use of railways in South African War The prime minister, Lord Salisbury, purchased a motor car First electric railway (Tyneside) Trade Boards Act fixed wages and conditions in some of the ‘sweated’ trades First cross-channel aeroplane crossing Canals, railways and coal mines nationalised for the duration of the war Women working and dilution of labour accepted in many formerly skilled trades Canals, railways and coal mines returned to private ownership

62 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Part 1: Historical background In many ways, the story of the railways epitomises general economic development generally during this period. Following an explosive growth, and the scandals of financing which damaged the reputation of George Hudson, from the mid-1840s onwards the railways settled down to steady development, with considerable emphasis placed on exporting the industry’s expertise and materials, including rails and rolling stock. Towards the end of the century, growth had virtually ceased, although the railways did not suffer from the depression which affected some other aspects of the economy. At the very end of the period, the technology which was to lead to the decay of the railways was beginning, hesitantly, to emerge, although the motor car would not seriously threaten the railway’s dominance until the 1950s. This pattern of rapid development followed by early signs of decline can be traced in many other areas of the economy.

The railways While the age of the railways may be said to have begun with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830, the great growth occurred in the next 70 years. By the end of 1849, over 6 thousand miles of track were open for traffic, and by 1870 this had more than doubled to 15,500 miles. By 1914, there were 23,000 miles of track in use and every aspect of life in Britain and its Empire was being affected by this revolution in transport. Across the Empire, railways became both a symbol of British power and a key mechanism in enforcing that power. Having been used for troop movements within Britain in 1848 in the face of the (unfulfilled) threat of revolution, railways later became a key war weapon: rails were laid in the Crimea to move supplies up from the harbour towards the troops besieging Sevastopol. Across the Empire, British railways, built and managed by British engineers, were used to move troops and to open up the vast areas of otherwise inaccessible territory. The use of trains in the Boer War provided a dress rehearsal for their role in Belgium and France in 1914–18. The importance of the railways was marked by the fact that governments found it necessary to intervene and regulate them almost throughout their history. Following Gladstone’s Railway Act of 1844, which ensured that the companies provided services to the full social range of potential customers, rather than concentrating only on those who paid best, Cardwell’s Railway Act 1854 was designed to prevent amalgamations, since there appeared to be a danger of growing monopolies or cartels and thus of restrictive practices. Further government intervention was prefigured in 1888 by the establishment of a Royal Commission with wide powers of supervision. Statutes of 1888, 1893 and 1894 extended government intervention further by fixing maximum rates for freight. Earlier hostility to amalgamation had subsided by the end of the century, when the financial weaknesses of some of the smaller companies threatened the economic well-being of large areas of the country, and companies began to come together to ensure stability. By 1914, the British railway system was in the hands of 11 large companies, although some smaller independent lines remained. During the First World War, the strategic importance of the railways was recognised when they were brought under government control. The trade unions and the Labour Party hoped that this nationalisation of the railways, and indeed the canals and coal mines, would be maintained in peacetime, but in fact these key industries were returned to their private owners.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 63 Figure 3.1 Map of England and Wales, circa 1857, showing the extent of railways and canals

The railways led the way for other industries in the standardisation of machinery, with obvious benefits in ease and economy of repairs: between 1858 and 1874, the great railway workshops at Crewe built 857 almost identical locomotive engines for the London & North West Railway. The gauge of the lines had been fixed long before, and the fact that this gauge became the norm internationally (although not in Russia) strengthened British exports. The main motive power until well into the twentieth century was steam. The few electrified lines at the end of the nineteenth century, for instance around Newcastle, were limited to local lines. The dependence of the railways on coal was almost total and would remain so until diesel became readily available.

Coal Coal was another industry which grew enormously during the nineteenth century, benefiting not just from the huge market offered by the railways, but also from the efficiency of railway transport. As well as becoming the main motive force of industry, in powering machinery, coal was increasingly relied upon for domestic and commercial heating. Coal in large quantities was required for the manufacture of gas, and as gas became the normal agent for street and house

64 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

lighting, the demand was immense. It is hard to imagine, in the era of natural gas (methane), the size of the industry which manufactured gas out of coal. The great gas works in east London, at Beckton, provides an informative case study. When the Metropolitan Gas Act was passed in 1860, Samuel Adams Beck built a gas works which in due course occupied an area larger than the City of London. One million tons of coal were imported to the works annually to enable it to make more than 1.75 million cubic metres of gas daily. By the 1880s, there was a workforce of over 30,000 men in the works, which were the birthplace of the National Union of Gas Workers and the workplace of Will Thorne, one of the great trade union and early Labour Party leaders. West Ham, the borough in which the works were located, was the first ever socialist-controlled local authority in Britain. Given the huge demands of both gas and railways, as well as domestic and industrial consumers, it is not surprising that the total amount of coal mined annually was over 100 million tons by the mid-1860s and almost 300 million tons by 1914. The apparently insatiable demand for coal resulted in remarkable technological developments in mining methods. Deep and long tunnels were required to track the seams, and cutting and lifting, draining and ventilating machinery was essential. Although the work of mining became more dangerous, a steady stream of government regulations, together with these new inventions, ensured that the death rate among miners actually fell, rather than rose. At the start of the nineteenth century, the annual average death rate was eight miners per thousand, while by the end, only just over one miner per thousand was dying each year. Another important market for coal was Britain’s substantial merchant and naval fleets. As late as 1865, there were still five sailing ships for every steam ship. Twenty years later, steam was Figure 3.2 Paddle steamer leaving Liverpool, 1888

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 65

predominant. Britain built ships for the world, not just for its own fleets. In the 1890s, more than 80 per cent of all new ships in the world were made in Britain (even by 1914, the figure was over 60 per cent), and Britain’s own seagoing shipping fleet was as great as those of the rest of the world combined. Coaling stations were established in British colonial possessions around the globe. Just as the railways ensured the growth of the coal industry, they also encouraged other developments, both directly by their own requirements and indirectly by expanding potential markets, increasing and speeding the supply of raw materials and facilitating the movement of goods to domestic and export markets. It is easy to over-emphasise the early industrial revolution of the eighteenth century and to understate the rate of change during the nineteenth. In fact, in many ways, the Britain of 1830 was not significantly different from the Britain of 1770, and it was during the 1840s and subsequently that the country changed most radically. The proportion of the population engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing was still almost 25 per cent by 1851; 50 years later, the share was down to 6 per cent. Also in 1851 the urban population of Britain first outnumbered the rural population.

Iron and steel The ship building industries, like the railways, were large consumers of iron and steel. By the 1880s, there was almost no ship building in wood in any British yard. This indicates how much more rapidly the heavy industries grew in the nineteenth century than they had in the eighteenth. In the period 1875–9 Britain was producing 46 per cent of the world’s pig iron: in 1865 the total amount of iron produced was 5 million tons, by 1873 it was 6.5 million tons and by 1883 it was 8.5 million. The development of the Bessemer steel converter in the 1850s was one of many technical advances which ensured Britain’s dominance in this field. (In the 1880s, Britain produced one third of the world’s steel.) Blowing air through molten pig iron in a tilting converter created steel much more efficiently than the previous open-hearth method. The removal of sulfur, phosphorus and carbon from the iron was much quicker and easier to control when the air was blown through the metal than when it was simply blown over the surface of the open tank. Indeed, modern twenty-first century steel production continues to use a Bessemer process, though it is oxygen rather than air which is blasted through the molten iron, and the amount of carbon left in is accurately metered, rather than being deduced from the state of the metal by the experienced operator. On the other hand, the failure of British industrialists to adopt the Gilchrist Thomas technique meant that by the end of the century iron with a high phosphorus content was more efficiently processed in Germany and the USA than in Britain. Iron and steel production was boosted by the growth of British plant and machinery manufacture. Britain exported farm machinery, railway track and locomotives, mining equipment and food processing equipment across the world. The world’s textile industries in the late nineteenth century used British plant and machines. Within Britain, sewing machines multiplied in both the clothing and the footwear trades, and by the close of the century had almost replaced the last major class of home workers, the shirtmakers and seamstresses.

66 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Textiles The eighteenth-century Industrial Revolution had been dominated by changes in the production of textiles, but the nineteenth century also saw more revolutionary developments in this field. In 1851, there were still 50,000 handlooms in use, but this number shrank to almost nothing in the following decades. Other processes which had survived as hand skills into the new century were rapidly mechanised. The invention of a viable cotton combing machine (Lister, 1845) ensured that the 22,000 skilled hand combers in the industry had, by the 1860s, lost their jobs. Spinning, the first process to experience industrialisation in the eighteenth century, underwent further development and expansion in the nineteenth century: by 1872 there were 42 million spindles making cotton, very few of which were powered by water as they had been in the early days. The manufacture of textiles experienced similarly rapid change and growth: worsted (fine woven woollens) moved to power looms in the 1840s and 1850s, with the number of looms reaching almost 30,000 by the 1850s. New machinery replaced old, with capital investment in textile mills growing steadily. The cotton industry in particular, depending for its raw materials on foreign supplies, was vulnerable to international problems. The American Civil War (1861–5) could have seriously damaged the industry. One reason why British sympathies lay with the Confederate, slave-owning states of the South was the fact that literally millions of jobs in Lancashire and Yorkshire depended on the produce of the cotton plantations. The impact of the Civil War on the cotton industry was less adverse than might have been expected, since the world shortage of cotton enabled warehouses of finished textiles to be cleared at high prices. Although jobs were lost, the businesses were not destroyed, and the industry could return to its former state when cotton exportation resumed. Missionary work in the new colonies of the late nineteenth century also enhanced the markets for British cottons. The native peoples of sub-Saharan Africa were assured that nakedness was ungodly, and the new converts adopted the dress which is now seen as traditional. The flowing robes and head coverings of modern Ghana, Kenya and Uganda guaranteed increased sales of British cotton textiles. Another international event which benefited the British textile trade was the defeat of France in the war against Prussia in 1870–1. France’s textile industries, having begun later than Britain’s, were thought by contemporaries to be more efficient and modern: the disaster of the Franco-Prussian war damaged France’s industrial base to the benefit of Britain. Britain’s exports of cotton made up half of all its exports; textiles as a whole, two-thirds of the total. Thus the removal of French competition could only be of advantage to Britain. Not until the mid-1880s did the amount and value of British textile exports begin to fall, as the countries of Europe began to equip themselves with the very latest machinery while British manufacturers were reluctant to expend capital on replacing their older plant. Britain was also exporting expertise in textile manufacture, particularly to Germany and north Italy. Growing competition from these countries and from the USA meant that, by the end of the nineteenth century, Britain’s share of the world’s manufacturing output fell from over 25 per cent (in the 1880s) to less than 20 per cent.

Was there a depression in the 1870s? Some historians consider that the British economy went into depression in the 1870s and 1880s. Across the world, prices collapsed in many commodities; but as with the financial and bank crises of the late 1850s, the effects were not as lasting as the depressions of the twentieth century.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 67

Unemployment in some parts of London may have risen as high as 10 per cent in the 1880s, causing the Lord Mayor of London to set up the Mansion House Fund to help the destitute. But the extent of the depression, other than in agriculture, which will be briefly considered later in this chapter, was limited and since the 1960s, beginning with S.B. Saul’s The Myth of the Great Depression,1 historians have argued about its severity. Although there was a substantial recovery after the difficulties of the 1880s, the First World War provided the perfect opportunity for the USA to take over the dominant position in world manufacturing. The impact of the war was also clear in the exportation of coal: in 1913, Britain was exporting 100 million tons per year; during the war years, exports of US coal replaced British in many markets.

Overseas investment Britain’s exports were not confined to products, plant and expertise. Investment in foreign enterprises played a substantial part in Britain’s prosperity, with railways again playing a leading role. A sum of £5.5 million, raised in London, built the railway from St Petersburg to Moscow; funding for the Paris–Rouen railway was also partly raised in London, and British navvies were the largest group in the workforce. Imperial railway building was also seen as a very safe investment, since in India and British East Africa, for instance, the risk was underwritten by the British government.

Retail In Britain, enhanced communications also affected retail selling. Consumers no longer needed to rely upon local suppliers and began to demand greater choice and ease of shopping. The first department stores were established in the 1870s, and the variety and freshness of the food available was increased by the railways. Government intervention to protect the standards of items on sale, such as the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, helped major producers by putting unscrupulous competition out of business. For example, the pharmacist Jesse Boot of Nottingham was aided by this legislation’s attempt to regulate the supply of patent medicines.

Population Although in Britain as a whole the population continued to rise, in some areas the trend was in the opposite direction. The population of Ireland did not recover during the rest of the century from the collapse caused by the famine of 1845–6. By 1914, the populace of Ireland was about 60 per cent of what it had been in 1840. The main reason for this was emigration. Almost half the Irish people reaching adulthood during the 1880s and 1890s chose to leave. To a lesser extent, the same situation prevailed in Scotland, where the natural increase in population was halved by emigration in the last part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. While some of these migrants moved to England, particularly to Lancashire and to London where there was work to be found, most of them went to the United States or to the colonies. The political impact of some of this migration will be discussed in Chapter 6. Meanwhile, towards the end of the century, a number of foreign refugees arrived in Britain, fleeing persecution in their own countries. The most substantial group were Jews from Russia, Russian Poland and the

68 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Ukraine: by 1900 there were about 140,000 Jewish people in London, with smaller but still sizeable communities in Manchester and Leeds. It should be no surprise that these communities suffered from prejudice and abuse, particularly in periods of economic or other difficulty. In 1917, for example, anti-Semitic riots in Leeds were triggered by the (completely unjust) accusation that ‘youths of the Hebrew persuasion’ were avoiding war service.

Agriculture The section of the economy which breaks the pattern of continued development up to the end of the century is agriculture. The early part of the century, on the whole, was a period of prosperity for farmers and food producers, as the growing towns required feeding and the railways and improved roads meant that goods could reach more and more distant markets. New technology strengthened farming: first horse- and then steam-powered threshing machines provided enhanced efficiency. There were some protests and episodes of machine breaking in the 1830s, but the generally thriving nature of the agricultural sector meant that surplus labour could, on the whole, be absorbed, although a major reason for migration to the towns was to find work. In 1851, 25 per cent of British men over the age of 20 were still working in agriculture, a total workforce of about 1.75 million. By the late 1840s, very little hand threshing was being done. Similarly, steam pumps, as employed in the new deep coal mines, were applied to field drainage, particularly in the fens. Although ploughs and harrows continued to be horse-drawn, except where a few radical and wealthy farmers experimented with steam-powered moving machinery, the development of improved, stronger iron and steel enhanced efficiency. As the rural Figure 3.3 Threshing by hand on the floor of a barn in an English farmyard, 1846

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 69 Figure 3.4 Garrett’s steam thresher, 1863

population declined, wages increased in most areas and child labour reduced. But the indications of future problems were clear in the steadily increasing proportion of British food purchased from abroad for ‘the town-bred people who must be provided with food from whatever source it could come most abundantly and cheaply, and that source was not the farmer at home.’2 Food imports had been growing since the Corn Laws were repealed, but in the 1870s this trend reached crisis proportions. The opening of the American and Canadian prairies made much more grain available on the world market; and the railways, some of them built with British capital, ensured that it reached the ports, whence British ships brought it to Britain. The development of refrigerated ships had a similar effect on world meat markets, as supplies arrived from Australia and New Zealand, as well as South America. British profits from investment in Argentine and Brazilian railways were paid for by dramatic losses in British farming. By the 1890s, one-third of the meat and over three-quarters of all wheat consumed in Britain was imported. The result in Britain was a catastrophic fall in food prices, which put farmers out of work, or forced them drastically to reduce their costs, which meant primarily their workforces. For example, wheat prices in 1894 were onethird of what they had been in 1847 (24 shillings as opposed to 70 shillings a quarter).

Chemical industries Technological developments helped overseas food producers, as barbed wire protected the prairies and chemical fertilisers increased their yield. Similarly, advances in the textile industry benefited foreign competition more than British manufacturers. In 1856, Perkin patented the first aniline dye, but British textile manufacturers generally preferred to keep to traditional dyes, and so the early lead in the chemical industry passed to Germany. One reason for the British attitude was a

70 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

distrust of chemical processes in general: the devastating effects of the Leblanc process for producing alkali had blighted large areas. Alkali was essential for bleaching and dyeing, as well as for glass-making, but the process emitted large amounts of hydrochloric acid in gas form, and the waste from the process, as it lay in heaps outside the factories, gave off hydrogen sulphide. Even a parliament reluctant to put any check on industrial growth was forced to act, and the first legislation about air pollution was passed in 1863.

Finance and banking As in the modern world, any shortfall in Britain’s balance of payments was covered by the socalled ‘invisible exports’ of financial and insurance services. British banking gradually became stable and secure, following the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and the lessons learned from the banking crisis of 1857. In that year, several provincial banks over-reached themselves and collapsed. After that, the Bank of England and the government between them extended regulation. The same period saw a doubling of the business of the London stock exchange, which was the mechanism for the capitalisation of many major industrial and engineering projects. By 1885, British foreign investment totalled more than £1,500 million. British insurance also ‘went abroad’, with 40 per cent of income from fire insurance for British companies coming from overseas by 1900.

Social conditions Overall, the atmosphere of the second half of the nineteenth century appears to have been stereotypically ‘Victorian’: prosperous, confident and perhaps a little smug. Nevertheless, it was not a prosperous or pleasant era for some. Urbanisation brought with it appalling living conditions: overcrowding, substandard or non-existent sanitation and a lack of affordable fresh food were among the difficulties confronting badly paid workers in the towns. While the life of the poor in the countryside was no richer, air quality and availability of fresh produce were significant factors in the greater life expectancy of rural people. In 1881, the death rate (number of deaths per thousand) for Britain overall was 22, whereas in towns such as Bradford and Sheffield it was 29 and in Liverpool and Newcastle, 32. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the rate had fallen below 20 almost everywhere, as government regulations (you will read more about this in Chapter 4) took effect. Improvements in the lives of women and children were particularly marked in the last years of the nineteenth and first years of the twentieth century. Regulations to prevent children working long hours and to curtail some of the less pleasant tasks for which they were used had been issued without full enforcement for many years. Gradually the improvement of adult wages made child labour less essential to family budgets, and the introduction of compulsory education ensured that children were not legally available for paid work. The position of women also gradually changed: reduced growth in the textile industry, which had a predominantly female workforce, meant that by 1901 there were just over 1.5 million textile workers, as compared to 2 million (nearly all male) engineering and metal workers. Railway workers were almost exclusively male, although by the end of the century some female clerical workers were being employed. The First World War was the accelerator for introducing women into other aspects of the working world. In 1915, the National Union of Railwaymen admitted

ESSAYS • 71

women for the first time – without, of course, changing its name. Throughout this period, however, women who worked outside their own homes were most likely to be employed in domestic service. In 1851, about 10 per cent of the total female population was employed in domestic service; considering that some of female population was either too young or too old to work, then this figure is a substantial proportion of working-age women. The number remained constant until the First World War offered young women a range of employment choices which gave them better wages and, almost as important, more autonomy. Those who were too old to work, or for reason of illhealth or disability, found it impossible to obtain work, suffered considerable hardship; only towards the end of this period were their problems being addressed, as we shall see in Chapter 4. The age of the railway was an age of general prosperity and British domination of the world’s economies. By the onset of the First World War, and even further by its end, this domination was lost, just as the railway’s domination was beginning to be threatened by the first internal combustion engines. Improved conditions and quality of life for most of the population were both a direct and an indirect result of the general prosperity of the railway years: direct, in the sense that wages were at a level where many groups – though not all – could improve their diet and living conditions; and indirect in the sense that the ‘ruling classes’ recognised the need to enfranchise the workers upon whom the wealth of Britain depended, and then to pass legislation which, designed to attract their votes, inevitably improved their lives. These are the developments which are dealt with in Chapter 4.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts; of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. The decline of the canals a) b)

For how long did the canals survive into the age of the railways? Why and to what extent did the development of the railways mark the end of the Canal Age?

(15 marks) (15 Marks)

a) From a modern perspective, it seems obvious that developing fast and direct railways would result in the instant or at least rapid death of canals. In fact, this death was a very slow one, with canals playing a major part in some of the key British industries throughout the century. Cotton from Liverpool continued to come into Manchester by waterway even after the completion of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway; in 1894, the completion of the Manchester Ship Canal meant that cotton and other transoceanic goods came into the heart of the city by water. In the coal producing areas of South Wales, too, canals competed adequately with railways. The Taff Vale Railway opened in 1841, but it was not until 1898 that it forced the closure of the Glamorganshire Canal up the valley, which had carried coal to the coast.

72 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Canal building was buoyant at the start of the nineteenth century, even though the beginnings of railway technology were being considered: the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal was completed in 1816, less than 20 years before the first railway. The first long canal tunnel in Britain, the Harecastle Tunnel, was opened in 1827, followed by others throughout the century. Further major technical developments to the canal system took place throughout the railway era. These were partly a response to the railways, since the aim was to speed up canal traffic; but they were also a sign that some businessmen were prepared to commit investment to the system. One such development was the inclined plane. The purpose of an inclined plane is to bypass a flight of locks by raising or lowering boats in tanks of water using rails on the hillside. The Monkton Canal inclined plane, near Glasgow, came into service in 1850. Perhaps more remarkably, the Foxton inclined plane in Leicestershire dates from as late as 1900. A further attempt to avoid the delays involved in climbing or descending large numbers of locks was the hydraulic lift. The most famous of these is the Anderton lift, which connects the Trent and Mersey Canal with the River Weaver. It was completed in 1875 and has been recently restored to working condition. Possibly most significant was the application of steam technology to the canals, again in an attempt to increase speed. From the 1860s onwards, steam engines began to power canal boats, although the complications of supply were considerable for a system which had previously relied on overnight grazing and the purchase of fodder from canalside farms to ‘fuel’ its motive power. Another technical development was the arrival of iron boats on the canals, for example on the Aire and Calder and Oxford canals in the 1860s. It is important, however, not to overstate the new technical developments on the canals. Modernisation was overdue, once the canal system had been in operation for a hundred years; but many canal companies failed to update because the railways were developing in the same crucial period. The railways grew at tremendous rate: by 1914, more than 23,000 miles of track were in use, whereas the canal system never achieved more than 5,000 miles. Many canal companies chose to sell out to railway entrepreneurs, who wanted both to use the land for building railways and to prevent competition. The Carlisle Canal Navigation was closed in August 1853 ‘when the water will be run out of the Canal for the purpose of converting it into a railway’.3 Thus many canals remained unmodernised and increasingly decrepit as funds for renovations were not available. b) The key advantages of the railways over the canals were ease of construction and speed of transportation. Passengers wanted to arrive in the centre of a town; freight, too, needed to be delivered close to the market or export point, or right at the gates of the factory. The railways were more able to deliver to the precise geographical target than canals with their perennial need to find enough water. A railway could be laid wherever the gradients were not too acute and could slip easily into the very centres of towns; on the other hand, the power of the great landlords was expressed energetically in blocking some railway routes. As the many lines approached London from the north, the great estates of the dukes of Bedford and Westminster proved insuperable barriers, as can be seen by the number of railway terminals ringing central London to the north, from Moorgate round to Marylebone. The canals had been able to proceed into the centre of London and to reach the Thames in several places. After the 1860s, however, the development of urban passenger transport, such as the underground systems, complemented the trunk routes of the railways.

ESSAYS • 73

Canals had begun the trend, which fed the railways, of industries being positioned away from the direct source of all their raw materials and from their main domestic markets, and they were to suffer as speed of supply and delivery became a key factor in industrial turnover. The first loss of trade to the railways was in the passenger carrying business. Even the fastest packet boats, with their relays of galloping horses and right of way over all other canal traffic, could not achieve more than 12 mph. This rate of travel which had seemed supernatural at the start of the nineteenth century appeared almost pedestrian in comparison with the railways. Thus speed and convenience, both of construction and of passenger and freight travel, ensured that railways would cause commercial canals to move into a terminal decline. But there were rearguard attempts to preserve canals. Governments continued to perceive them as a significant part of the nation’s economy, well into the railway age: in 1845, Gladstone, as president of the Board of Trade, introduced regulating legislation designed to ensure that canals could withstand competition from the railways; and, in 1848, the government took over the management of the Crinan Canal in Scotland. There were political and ideological objections, however, to government-run competition to private railway companies. Further laws regulating canal life were passed in 1877 and 1884, and canal tolls were brought under government control in 1894. Indeed, a Royal Commission on the canals recommended as late as 1909 that the canals should be nationalised and, while this was rejected as being likely to cause unfair competition for the railways, the canals were indeed taken into public ownership during the First World War, only being returned to their owners in 1920. Meanwhile other groups were considering the potential benefits of preserving and enhancing the canal system. At a conference of the Society of Arts on ‘Canals and Inland Navigation’ in 1888, Sir Douglas Dalton said We in England had practically ignored our canals for the last fifty years; but when we turn to the continent of Europe . . . we find that the Governments of France, Germany and Belgium have been much more alive to the importance of water communication; these governments have acquired and are improving their principal water routes with very great advantage.

This was indeed the key. With investment and private interest firmly committed to the railways, the canals could only compete if supported by substantial government funds. And the British House of Commons, dominated by business and financial figures, would not approve – other than in times of national need – of government controlling one of several competing forms of transport. The canals, slow to build, difficult to maintain and expensive to run, could not compete with the rapid travel rates and burgeoning miles of the railways.

a) b)

What were the limitations of canal transportation? To what extent is the lengthy survival of the canals surprising?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Given the distribution of the marks, you should spend two-thirds of your time on part (b). But it is sensible to deal with part (a) in detail, since there are plenty of marks here too! Part (a) should help you agree with the statement in part (b); then you need to refer to the strengths of the canal system to provide the counterbalance required by the ‘to what extent’ type of question.

74 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

2. The development of the railways a) b)

What were the key phases in the development of the railways? Why was the development of the railways so rapid?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The origins of the railways lay in inventions of the eighteenth century which had become a part of life before the railways themselves were born: steam power was a crucial part of mine drainage and of an increasing number of industrial processes, and so it was only a matter of time before the same power would be applied to locomotion. When early road steam engines proved to be too cumbersome and dangerous, another existing technology was adapted. It had been a regular practice to put down wooden or metal railing to provide a smooth road bed for horse-drawn wagons. The marriage of the steam locomotive to a metal permanent way was the obvious next step. Demand was a key factor. The need to move coal rapidly from mine to works ensured that investment would be forthcoming; and the ability to move passengers rapidly and safely was bound to be an attractive proposition. Indeed, the promise of high returns on investments led to the ‘railway mania’ of the late 1830s and early 1840s, which saw 2,600 miles of track laid. It had taken the canal system 80 years (1760–1840) to achieve this mileage.4 Indeed, in the single year of 1846, authorisation was given to mileage of new railways exceeding the total waterway system, although the time taken to build the track was now beginning to slow. Although there was financial malpractice, accompanied by dangerous levels of speculation in the early period, nevertheless, railway investment soon became a key part of any wealthy man’s portfolio. By the 1860s, the great constitutional writer, Bagehot, identified 200 ‘railway’ MPs in the House of Commons who would ensure that nothing was permitted which would harm their investment. On the boards of railway companies sat both the old wealth of Britain, diversifying away from land as it became harder to collect rent from tenant farmers squeezed by foreign competition, and the new wealth, the industrialists for whom railways were commercially crucial. The availability of capital meant that the growth of the railways was steady: the 6,000 miles of track open for traffic in 1849 had more than doubled by 1870 to 15,500 miles. By 1914, there were 23,000 miles of track in use in Britain, together with thousands of British-owned miles in the Empire, and further thousands of miles in Europe and the United States bringing in dividends to British investors. It is not surprising that the proceeds of these investments were re-invested into other railway enterprises. Developments in the actual technology of the railways were slower than the development of the whole system. Coal continued to be the main source of power (except across the Empire, where wood-burning locomotives proved to be much more viable) and the first tentative steps towards electrification were not taken until the very end of the century. The metal used for the permanent way did, however, improve in step with developments in steel production. Thus after its feverish start, the railway industry developed to match the available capital and the continuously growing demand. And that development continued to be extremely rapid. b) The rapid nature of railway expansion can be explained first by the availability of all the necessary skills, technologies and workers. The laying of rails had been done in a small way in quarries,

ESSAYS • 75

coal mines and other industrial works in order to facilitate the movement of horse-drawn wagons. Tunnelling, essential if the railways were to go where they were needed, was being developed as coal mines went deeper and further in the search for the most productive seams. Tunnelling had also been a crucial part of canal building, with 42 miles of canal tunnel in existence as the railways were beginning. The canals had also been a training ground for the skills of embankment building and cutting digging. Any embankment which could support the great weight of a canal full of water would be more than adequate for a railway. The heavy industries were expanding at a tremendous rate, so that metal for rails and coal for locomotives could be readily supplied. By 1850, the locomotives on Britain’s railways were consuming 1 million tons of coal a year. Similarly, the increasing urbanisation and resultant demand for housing had led to industrialisation of the brick-making process, a country craft for centuries; thus the insatiable demand of the railways for bricks could be met. In the single year of 1848, one third of all British brick production was used on the railways. Labour was equally available. During the 1840s, the number of people working on railway construction rose from 100,000 to 330,000. The ‘navvies’ who had built the canals were available to build the railways, since there was no economic life available to them in Ireland. Although some of the surplus labour of Ireland moved north to the textile mills and shipyards of Ulster, many also chose to work in England and Wales. The work of building the railways was in large measure similar to building canals. In terms of capitalisation and design, of course, building a railway was much easier than building a canal. The development of the canals had been dogged by the need to find reliable water supplies: in comparison, laying metal rails was straightforward. The second ingredient which ensured the rapid development of the railways was the demand for a fast and flexible form of transport, both for freight and for passengers. Although the canals could carry heavy goods much more efficiently than road wagons, their charges and tolls were extremely high. As Charles Hadfield writes, ‘It was indeed high freight charges, probably more than high canal tolls which so much encouraged the development of railways.’5 The canal tolls were significant, however, since those who had dug the canals needed to pay their shareholders as well. As late as the 1860s, the courts were busy with carriers who had tried to evade the canal companies’ tolls by secretly stowing high toll goods under a cargo of low toll goods such as road stone. Because the railway companies controlled both rolling stock and permanent way, this multiplying of charges did not occur, making them much more attractive as carriers. The general growth in the British economy, and particularly in exports, ensured that railways were in high demand to move goods from factory to market or to harbour, and investors recognised this certainty. The existence of one line might point to the need for a connecting line, and thus to opportunities for further expansion of the system. Passenger transport was a vital part of railway profitability, and the main attraction of railways was their considerable speed. The very fastest canal boats travelled at 12 mph, achieved by relays of horses galloping along towpaths with right of way over all other traffic. But this system was extremely expensive, as well as dangerous, while the railways could easily and regularly achieve a previously unthinkable 30 mph. Once city workers had seen the attraction of suburban living in one part of the country, the practice of commuting was bound to extend the railway system around large towns as rapidly as the track could be laid.

76 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

The railways were the technology which Britain had been waiting for in the first part of the nineteenth century: expanding industries and growing towns were in desperate need of rapid and efficient transportation. Given the availability of the labour force and raw materials, the existence of an avid market ensured rapid and continuous growth.

a) b)

What factors made possible the rapid growth of the railways? How true is it to say that ‘the railways revolutionised both industrial and agricultural production in Britain’?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Each part of the question requires you to argue, and since the marks are even, so should your answers be. Make sure that in part (b) you really use the word ‘revolutionised’ to indicate major changes; also make sure that you deal with both agriculture and industry. You may want to consider briefly how the changes in agriculture and the railways affected the food of industrial workers and thus, possibly, their work rate.

3. Financing the railways How far do you agree that the way the railways were financed provided ‘a bonanza for the wealthy, with few benefits for the poor’?

(90 marks)

To answer this question, we need to distinguish between the investment opportunities offered by the building of the railways and the value of the completed railways themselves. While it is certainly true that the ordinary people did not participate in the financing of the railways and the resultant profits, the railways themselves undoubtedly benefited all branches of society. In order to invest, it is essential to have surplus income. Workers during the nineteenth century benefited from increased wage levels while prices in general fell throughout the latter part of the century. For many workers, a reduction in working hours often meant enhanced income through overtime payments. For example, during the period of the construction of the dreadnoughts in the Portsmouth naval dockyard in 1905–6, dockyard workers, whose basic working week was 41.5 hours, were working up to 69 hours per week. This money was not, however, invested in stocks and shares. Some of it went on improved leisure pursuits and on consumer durables, such as cookers and inside sinks; much of it was saved, especially by workers with aspirations to a peaceful and respectable old age. Until the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908, saving was essential for those who wished to avoid the workhouse. By 1900, over 5.5 million people were members of friendly societies, and the Post Office Savings Bank, one of many such institutions, had deposits amounting to over £40 million. But working men, although ready to gamble in more direct ways on sports and games of chance, were not in a position to invest on the stock market, or in limited companies. Indeed, despite attempts in the last decades of the twentieth century to persuade them to do so, working people have continued to be unwilling to invest in shares. Most new railway enterprises looked for their financing to a narrow circle of people known to the initiators of the schemes. Subscription lists would be circulated within tight social circles and

ESSAYS • 77

among the leaders of the commercial and industrial society of the large towns. Dividend payments tended to be around 6–8 per cent, although in the early 1840s the Stockton and Darlington had returned as much as 15 per cent. The aristocracy and the large landowners were glad to invest in the railways, since the rent revenue from their own tenant farmers was shrinking. By 1905, rents in the Midlands were at 1870 levels; in Wiltshire, the earl of Pembroke, whose estates had brought him an income of £11,000 in 1874, experienced an overall loss of over £2,000 in 1896. It is no wonder that investing in railway development appeared attractive. On the other hand, the slow return on substantial initial commitment meant that railway shares were less than a bonanza, except in the early and ‘maniac’ years when people were so eager for railway shares that they could be sold at enormous profits without a single piece of track having been laid. After the initial ‘mania’ period of railway building, when entrepreneurs such as George Hudson made fortunes and lost their reputations, the financing of railways became part of the normal business of businessmen and financial institutions. By the 1840s, investment in a railway scheme was recognised as a sensible, profitable and worthwhile way of putting money to work. But the rewards were far from instant, and the process was long and complex. The first phase of investment would raise what was required to cover the surveys and mapping of the putative route, costing of necessary land purchase, and the appointment of legal and parliamentary experts. Their task would be to draft a private bill in an acceptable parliamentary style. A sum of money to stand as a deposit demonstrating the security of the proposed capital was also essential at this early stage. To accompany the draft bill, a petition was also prepared, together with surveys, plans, sections and maps in a book of reference. The examiner of petitions in Parliament would scrutinise this to ensure that it was an accurate statement of costs, capital, subscriptions so far and the names of the people and companies involved. A further expense at this preliminary stage was the requirement to post notices in the London and Edinburgh gazettes as well as in local newspapers and to inform all interested parties. All this preliminary work was complicated by the need to lodge the bill and the petition before 30 November in the given year; even then, it was by no means certain that the bill would be successful before the end of the parliamentary session in the summer. And if it was not, then a whole year’s delay and a repetition of much expense confronted the investors. Once the private bill was ‘laid on the table of the House’, the first and second readings were likely to be rapid; unfortunately for the investors, the same could not be said for the committee stage, where opposition from interested parties was most likely to be expressed. In the famous conflict when Eton College resisted the branch line to Windsor, on the grounds that it might disturb the pupils in their studies, the committee stage went on for 57 days. A third reading and then a passage through similar stages in the House of Lords would lead to the royal assent before, it was hoped, the end of the session. But even if all this was achieved, there was still no return for the shareholders – although their shares might become more marketable at this stage. On the contrary, there was often a need for a further investment, to cover the acquisition of land and the payment of compensation to those who were being dispossessed. This was a moment when fraud could be extremely profitable. Stories abound of cardboard houses being put up on the proposed line of the railway in the hope of collecting compensation. The purchase of land and the employment of a workforce meant that potential investors who to date had done no more than express interest would now need to supply funds. Even during the

78 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

fastest period of railway building, there could be no hope of a return on the investment for months. The building phase seldom ran smoothly. Disputes between English and Irish gangs of workers were common and often violent. They might also find themselves opposed by landowners who would make use of the forces of their tenants and gamekeepers to stop the building. Violence could also ensue when two different railway companies had franchises to build in one town: in Wolverhampton, where both the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company and the London and North Western Railway were licensed to build, pitched battles actually took place in 1850 and 1851. The evidence of this struggle remains in the existence of the two railway stations, Wolverhampton High Level and Low Level. Financing the railways was a long drawn-out process and one where the undoubted rewards were slow to come. It is not surprising that the owners of the railways were among the richest men in the country. Benefits for the poor did not come from investment but from the existence and use of the railways. Travel became possible for all but the poorest, particularly after the 1844 Railway Act guaranteed services for even the least important stations, and the railway companies gradually began to improve travelling conditions in third class. Travel was not merely for pleasure but also for search of employment; working away from home became much less disruptive of social life when a job 50 miles away meant no more than two hours travelling. Among those to benefit were the many young women working in domestic service away from their families who were able to return home for visits with more regularity. The railways also offered many opportunities for employment. Railway towns like Swindon in Wiltshire grew in size, and railway companies, needing to attract workers, offered model housing, with schools, libraries, and leisure and medical facilities. Recognising the need for skilled workers, many railway companies established apprenticeship schemes within their workshops, providing a sound technical education. The population of Swindon doubled in the decade 1881–91. Another benefit for the poor was the availability of a much wider range of products, thanks to the improvement in the transport network. The most direct improvement was in diet, since the railways made supplying the towns much easier. By 1905, the average annual meat consumption in Britain was 122 lbs (55 kg) per head (or about 1 kg per week). This is in comparison to the French annual rate of 80 lbs (36 kg) per head. Fresh vegetables were increasingly available in the towns, as were dairy products. Thus it could be suggested that the existence of the railways was one of the main contributory factors in the improving health of the population. The poor did not benefit in financial terms in the development phase of the railway age. They did, however, gain many advantages from the existence and growth of the railway network.

a) b)

Why was it so easy to find investors to put money into railway developments? (15 marks) How far did the railways prove to be a sensible area in which to invest? (15 marks)

ESSAYS • 79

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Comment that it certainly was easy, judging by the rapid growth of the railways. Para 2: Availability of money from industries and from new techniques in agriculture. Para 3: Practice of investing in capital projects during the period of the canals. Para 4: Not as much opportunity as later for overseas investment, so railways attractive. b) Para 5: Yes, because there were profits to be made as railways were such a radical success (some figures of mileages and passengers and freight carried), lack of any form of transport to compete. Para 6: No, since some of the lines were extremely speculative and could not possibly make a profit. Railway mania period indicates how risky the investments could be. Conclusion: The prime lines were well worth investing in, and continued to pay generous dividends until the end of the century, but others were risky and government regulations reduced chance of making a lot of money.

4. The impact of the railways a) b)

What was the social and economic impact of the railways in Britain? How far do you agree that the railways radically altered the lives of the ordinary people?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The social and economic impact of the railways was regarded as enormous by contemporaries. Samuel Smiles, the philanthropist, suggested that the railways had ‘reduced England to a sixth of its size’, and certainly improved communication was of great social significance. The existing trend towards urbanisation was accelerated by the growth of the railways, since they made it so much easier for people to be able to move. Links between different parts of the country also meant that moving into a town was a less final act than in the past. Visits home were more possible once travel at more than 30 mph became the norm. Male workers in depressed parts of the country could travel to where the work was, returning home with their earnings from time to time. Local travel for work also became possible, as the growth of the suburbs demonstrates. Travel for pleasure was one of the earliest uses of the railways, with Thomas Cook organising his first railway excursion in 1841. Not that this use of the railways was greeted with universal approval, especially if such outings were scheduled for Sunday. The Newcastle and Carlisle Railway found a planned outing condemned in placards posted in the streets of Kilsyth by the local vicar, the reverend W.C. Burns: A reward for Sabbath breaking: People taken safely and swiftly to Hell! Next Lord’s Day, by the Carlisle Railway, for 7s 6d. It is a pleasure trip!6

The remarkable attendance at the Great Exhibition of 1851 was made possible by the railways. Between 1 May and 15 October, the Crystal Palace was visited by over 6 million people, many

80 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918 Figure 3.5 Artist’s impression of a railway excursion, circa 1860

of them in organised groups headed by their vicar or by the manager of their works. The whole experience, the travel as well as the Exhibition, was seen to be educational and the railways were fulfilling other educational roles. The telegraph wires which ran alongside railway lines enhanced communications, so that news spread rapidly. The railways carried the newspapers of London and the other big cities across the country, and the demand for newspapers increased with the level of literacy in the nation. The railways also carried the mail. Postage was not cheap: the penny post was instituted at a time when the average weekly wage of a labourer was about 10 shillings, or 120 pence. If we compare this to the modern world, when the average wage is in the region of £200 per week, it would mean that the cost of posting a letter would be about £1.60. Despite the high cost, by 1871 there was an annual average across the country of 32 letters per head and by 1900 the average was over 60. While many of these letters were destined locally, the railways carried many letters too. Improvements in the health of the nation were also partly due to the development of the railways – by means other than trips to bracing seaside resorts! While in some ways the national diet worsened, with the consumption of white bread, margarine (in the 1890s) and cheap jam, the availability of vegetables and meat at lower prices than before had a decisive effect on life expectancy and, in particular, on the health of infants and children. The movement of meat rather than livestock was made possible by the railways, and increased the supply reaching markets in the big towns. Across the world, railways brought Argentine, Australian and New Zealand meat to the ports for refrigerated transportation to Britain. The economic impact was as great. The railways themselves were insatiable consumers of coal and of iron and steel products, with over 1 million tons of coal a year being used by railways from

ESSAYS • 81

1850 onwards, and the thousands of miles of track laid ensured that demand for iron and steel remained high. The need for bricks for tunnels, bridges and embankment walls also stimulated developments in brickworking. At the same time, improved transport opened up large new markets and made possible works sited at some distance from their raw materials. The huge increase in the exportation of coal was made possible by better delivery to the coast, and the exportation of British textiles was facilitated in the same way. At the same time, imported goods were disseminated across Britain by the railways: grain from the American prairies to the gates of mills and breweries, frozen meats to the growing towns. The economic impact of cheap, reliable and efficient transport was substantial, and therefore it is not surprising that the social impact was similarly large. b) As we have seen, the economic and social impacts of the railways on Britain were considerable, and thus it is reasonable to suggest that the radical changes in everyday life experienced by the ordinary people were linked to the railways. But there were many other factors which affected everyday life, and without the railways these other factors would have ensured that a time traveller from the eighteenth century would have had difficulty in recognising many aspects of life at the end of nineteenth century. Employment opportunities were much enhanced by the railways, both directly, with over 2 million people employed by the railways by 1881, and indirectly, given the huge demand for coal, steel, bricks and construction labour throughout the period. Without the railways, the overseas markets for British textiles and machinery would have been harder to reach. For some groups of workers this added mobility was damaging: towns no longer looked to their local farmers for their food, preferring to find food wherever it was cheapest. Indeed, the food supplies of the cities became dependent on the railways. The drovers who brought meat ‘on the hoof’ into London in earlier days were superseded by trains carrying carcasses, and the cows kept in the London parks were increasingly replaced by the ‘milk trains’ which brought dairy products into the towns daily. By the end of the century, many employers were offering their workers a half day on Saturdays as well as the day off on Sunday. For the wealthier members of the working classes, the railways provided an opportunity to make good use of this extra leisure time. From 1871, with the introduction of bank holidays, day trips became a regular part of life. Away fans, and indeed the football teams themselves, would travel by train to matches. As town life became increasingly the norm for the majority of the population, trips to the country and the seaside were attractive ways to spend leisure days. The towns themselves grew in size as a result of the railways; while it was mostly the middle classes who could afford to move to leafy suburbs and to commute into their workplace, the poorer people made their way into the suburbs too, as live-in laundresses, cooks and maids, able to go home to their families on their days off. But it is important not to overstate the case. Other developments, which had nothing to do with the railways, were bringing about radical changes in the lives of ordinary people. Urbanisation was already irreversible before the first of the railways, and these huge populations would have been fed without the railways. Many towns, including London, continued to get much of their food through coastal shipping, and the total number of horses in Britain went up four times between 1875 and 1900, just when one might have expected the railways to make the horse

82 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

redundant. As for the leisure use of the railways, not all workers had holidays, and those that did could not always afford the ‘day trip’ tickets. Probably the most radical change in the lives of ordinary people was the removal of the threat of death from smallpox and the overcoming of the threat from cholera and other diseases of dirty water. Although the death of the prince consort from typhoid demonstrated that even the richest were not immune from the diseases of poor drainage, improvements in the urban environment were rapid and thorough in the last quarter of the century. The government also intervened more and more in the everyday welfare of the population, looking into nutrition, education, safety and hours of work. In comparison to the provision of free elementary education for all, from 1891 onwards, the fact that newspapers became available by courtesy of the railways seems less important. The establishment of a national system of workers’ insurance and of pensions for old age were to have a far greater impact on the health and happiness of the working classes than the ability to spend a day by the seaside. The railways were, nevertheless, a significant part of life in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and may be said to symbolise the great changes and the increasing opportunities available to working people.

a) b)

Who opposed the building of the railways? How far do you agree that ‘the railways produced benefits for every class in British society’?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Part (a) of this question can be dealt with quite quickly, providing you find at least three groups of people to include: canal companies? Local residents anxious about the noise and danger? Farmers convinced their stock would be killed by the trains? Health and morals pundits worried about the bad effects on passengers? Part (b) needs thorough planning so that you deal with ‘every’ class in British society. Remember to consider economic as well as social benefits.

5. Women in industry a) b)

Which industries and trades in nineteenth-century Britain were the main employers of women? (30 marks) How far did the industrial developments of the nineteenth century improve or harm the condition of women? (60 marks)

a) There are specific problems involved in exploring the employment of women in the nineteenth century as compared with the employment of men. The key source is of course the census, as carried out every ten years throughout the century and to the present day. But the more historians examine the information supplied by the census, the clearer become the discrepancies. For example, Professor John Holley compared information on woollen workers in southern Scotland

ESSAYS • 83

derived from the census with the wage books of the employers; the wage books include the names and addresses of women workers, and yet over half the women concerned were listed in the census as having no occupation.7 It is possible, nevertheless, to identify the main areas of paid work in which women were involved and to make deductions about others. The largest group of women were employed in domestic service: in other words, they were doing housework, but not in their own homes. In 1851, some 10 per cent of the female population, 1,224,419 women, were enumerated as being in domestic service. By 1891, the number had gone up to 1,949,606. One reason for this is the growing prosperity among the middle and upper classes fuelled by the industrial and entrepreneurial developments of the century. The number had already begun to decline before the First World War offered women a choice of work which was both better paid and less hard. Although the governments stepped in to regulate and control conditions in many occupations, they did not do so for domestic service, where it is estimated that the average daily work of women was over 12 hours. The figures may, however, be inaccurate in several ways. For example, once the enumerators of the census began to count ‘laundry workers’ as opposed to ‘washerwomen’, in 1871, it is possible women working as laundry maids in private houses were counted with factory or workshop-based laundresses. In addition, many women listed as having no occupation might take in lodgers and thus would be doing domestic work as a way of earning money, rather than merely for their own families. Textile factories were the second main employers of women, with half a million women workers from the 1850s to the end of the century. The work done by women varied from area to area. The only process which was successfully reserved to men was that of ‘mule’ spinning. The main spinning machine of the cotton industry from the 1780s, Crompton’s Mule, moved across the floor of the plant while rollers and spindles produced the yarn. It was said that women did not have the physical strength to ‘walk’ the mules, or to lift the finished ‘beams’ of yarn from the machines. Given that women supervised the power looms which wove the yarn onto large beams and given the hard physical work that women did at the pit brows of coal mines, it may be suggested that the issue of the mule spinners was more a question of men protecting their jobs than of women’s weakness. It is clear that many women worked in retail outlets, whether making goods or selling them. Since the censuses until 1911 did not distinguish between shop owners and shop workers (calling them all ‘dealers’), precise numbers are difficult to obtain. Certainly, the fact that the Shops Act of 1906 dealt specifically with the working and living conditions of young women in the large department stores suggests that there was a substantial group to be considered. A similar area difficult to categorise is that of clerical work. By 1911, approximately 183,000 women were doing clerical work; beginning to replace the many thousands of young men on high stools depicted in the works of Dickens and Trollope. Office work was not perceived as ‘women’s work’, however, until the First World War. The skills of typewriting and shorthand were seen as appropriate to the neat fingers (and minds) of women, and clerical work was one of the few areas where men did not reclaim their jobs at the end of the war. Only the development of computers at the end of the twentieth century reversed the trend and returned to men the letter writing and other stereotypical office skills which women had done for 80 years. It might have been expected that the coming of the factories would have put an end to outworking, or homeworking, and certainly in the textile areas of the north, homeworking had virtually

84 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

disappeared by the 1850s. In other areas, however, it continued, with almost all garment making being done in the homes of outworkers, together with straw plaiting (for straw hats), lace making, matchbox making and even nail making. Not until the Factory Act of 1901 were local authorities required to ask employers for lists of outworkers. Some historians suggest that by then there were as many as 400,000 outworkers in the various trades. The last group to be considered is women agricultural workers, a group also under-enumerated by the census, which described the wives of tenant farmers as housewives, rather than workers. It does, however, appear to be true that as the total number of people engaged in agriculture fell, the proportion of women fell more steeply. Rather than remaining on the parental farm, girls were likely to go into domestic service. It appears to be the case that over half of all unmarried women worked in paid employment during the nineteenth century; certainly that is what the censuses show, and on the whole census information about women tends to under- rather than over-estimate their role in the workforce. The figure for married and widowed women was much lower, possibly around 15 per cent. Very few of these jobs were new, rather they were the kinds of jobs which women had traditionally done, in some cases moved into a factory and in others merely moved onto someone else’s premises. E.H. Hunt suggested in 1981: The proportion of women at work in nineteenth-century Britain was probably not larger than the proportion that had worked before the Industrial Revolution.8

b) The question of the condition of women was one which exercised many minds during the nineteenth century. The continuity of some attitudes can be seen by these two statements: the first from a petition circulated by male potters in 1845, and the second from a letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post in June 1916: To maidens, mothers and wives, we say machinery is your deadliest enemy . . . it will destroy your natural claims to home and domestic duties and will immure you and your toiling little ones in overheated and dirty shops, there to weep and toil and pine and die. We think that a woman’s place is at home, looking after the home, husband and family, and if she is a young woman, she ought to be learning something better than pit bank work.

This perception of a domestic idyll, from which women were lured by greed, bears little relationship to actual events. Given the physically challenging and labour-intensive nature of housework, cooking, cleaning and child care in the nineteenth century, it would be reasonable for women to stay at home. If a woman was out at work all day, she might have to buy expensive ‘convenience’ foods, rather than baking her own bread and pies. In addition, to provide satisfactory child care was a major cost and even the best-paid workers (skilled weavers and carders in the cotton and worsted trades, for instance) found that the costs of going out to work absorbed a serious proportion of their wages. On the other hand, in an age with no pension or disability provision, a widow or a woman with a disabled husband had little choice but to go to work or to earn money in the home.

ESSAYS • 85

The growth in domestic service may well have improved the condition of young girls from rural areas, otherwise condemned to work – often unpaid – for their father, or their father’s landlord, and then their husband. On the other hand, it seems that domestic servants seldom encouraged their own daughters to go into service, preferring to establish them in shop work or in a clerical position. Industrialisation brought about the increase in domestic service, as the entrepreneurial class could afford to keep its women at leisure and spare them domestic drudgery. But industrialisation also enlarged the towns and so increased the numbers of shops and offices needing staff. For textile workers, work in a factory might well be preferable to home work, since the machinery did not occupy the home and, if particular conditions of temperature and humidity were needed (as for cotton spinning), these did not affect home life. Companionship and the support of workmates may also have been preferable to isolated working at home. In other trades, as the work became more intensive, governments stepped in to regulate the conditions of women. Some women’s leaders disapproved of government intervention. In the eyes of Emma Paterson, founder of the Women’s Protection and Provident League, it was degrading for women to be classed with children as needing special protection. Succeeding ministries, nevertheless, acted to protect women, for example from underground work in the burgeoning coal mines (1842) and in unregulated agricultural gang working (1867). As suggested by the two extracts quoted earlier, the main antagonism to women working came from men. Men, and in particular the trade unions, held out against equal pay for women, fearing for their own wage rates. The generally held view that there was only a limited amount of work in the country meant that men thought that if women worked, they might lose their own jobs. Certainly, in areas where men’s employment dried up for any reason and women became the main breadwinners, there is no evidence of a switching of roles. Whether women worked outside the home or not, it was they who did the work at home. Although there was a surplus of women in the country as a whole, and therefore not all women could expect to get married, the general perception, incorporating the ‘domestic idyll’, was that women would only work until they had a husband to support them and trade unionists agitated for men to be given a ‘family wage’ which would make this state of affairs possible. Thus, in many trades, the women workers were young and, as a consequence, less well paid than the men. It is possible that the determination to keep mature women out of the paid workplace had the effect of depressing wages in general. Only in a few limited areas did industrialisation have a radical and direct impact on the position and condition of women. Less direct influences of industrialisation undoubtedly improved the condition of women. Medical research, for instance, made possible as large hospitals were funded and opened in the new big cities, reduced the death rate in childbirth dramatically during this period, together with a substantial reduction in infant mortality. The growing importance of the working class to the general prosperity of the country meant that reforms began which improved the conditions of all working people and hence of women. Education, improved sanitary conditions, protection from gross overwork, all benefited the whole population. But for society, the fact that women worked, and particularly that some worked after their marriages, was seen as an ill that needed curing, rather than as anything to do with equality or independence.

86 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

a) b)

Compare the lives of working-class women in the nineteenth century with those of their middle class sisters. (15 marks) Discuss the view that industrialisation did more harm than good to the women of the working classes. (15 marks)

Part (a) needs to consider all aspects of life: work, food, leisure, domestic circumstances, child care and so on. Allowance must be made for the changes which occurred, for example in working conditions, thanks to government legislation and also because of changes in education. Do not forget to consider the women who worked in agriculture as well as industry. Your comparison in part (a) will be a good basis to deal with part (b). Statistics about improved life expectancy and better health in motherhood will be a part of your answer as well as information about how hard the working lives of women were.

6. Railways and foreign policy a) b)

To which countries was Britain’s railway technology exported? How did the development of railway transport affect the conduct of Britain’s foreign and imperial policy during this period?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) A simplified answer to this question would, of course, be ‘all of them’ since Britain’s pioneering use of steam locomotive power on metal rails was watched with admiration and envy by other countries, whether industrialised or not, around the world. The profits made by British capitalists were available for investment in projects in other countries, and British engineers and designers were in demand wherever trains were seen to be desirable. In due course, the extension of modern transport was to have implications for foreign and strategic policies but, in the short term, the railways were seen as the progenitors of peace, prosperity and progress. Within Europe, the three main ‘railway countries’ were Belgium, France and Germany. Belgium was unique in planning a state-funded and controlled railway network, which was effectively complete by 1850. The benefits showed themselves rapidly, with substantial rises in the export of coal and cast iron and with the railways showing an annual profit of 5 per cent. Some of the money borrowed by the government was British, and many of the lines were planned by British engineers and built by British contractors. As the railway mania in Britain sobered down, expertise and money was able to cross the channel. In France, there was prolonged discussion about whether the state or private enterprise should be the driving force; in the event, private companies were often subsidised, or at least guaranteed by the government. British investment and British expertise again crossed the Channel and was involved in some of the remarkable engineering achievements which traversed France from east to west and north to south, and cut through the Alps at Mont Cenis in the 1860s. The states of Germany, not yet unified, achieved a more remarkable network, since the railways functioned well once Bismarck’s Empire was eventually formed in 1871. As early as the 1830s,

ESSAYS • 87

King Ludwig of Bavaria had sent engineers to Britain to learn techniques, and in Prussia, the royal family also expressed interest. From the start, the military establishment recognised the potential of a railway system which would carry armies speedily westwards. The cost of railways in Germany was cheaper than that of Britain because of the low cost of land and the ability to use the underoccupied nature of the land to follow the natural contours and avoid expensive tunnels, embankments and viaducts, which put the price per mile in Britain to around three times that of Germany. After 1871, the French post-war indemnity paid for more railways, while the railway lines built by the French in Alsace and Lorraine joined the German system seamlessly. In Russia and Austria-Hungary, British investment and expertise were also involved in the rather slower railway development. Across the Atlantic, the huge expanses of the American continent made railways particularly attractive. In Canada, British Columbia refused to join the Canadian federation unless the railway, paid for at least partly by the British government, was extended to their territory. In the United States, British investment helped to drive the railways across the prairies and in 1897 into the gold producing areas of the Yukon. In the South American continent, the railways of Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil, like their later electricity and water companies, were part owned and mainly financed from Britain and seen as a part of Britain’s unofficial empire. A country which purchased most of Argentina’s meat would naturally expect to be the providers of the railways which brought that meat to the sea coast for refrigerated shipment. In Britain’s official empire, too, the railways were British financed and British made. From Malta to Hong Kong and from Canada to Australia, British engineers spent British money on constructing the arteries of empire. In many cases, they used forced labour too, whether prisoners from the imperial prison system or British troops, as in the building of the Sudan railway which accompanied Kitchener’s expedition in the 1890s. Throughout the world, the technology of railways was adopted and adapted, making use not merely of British ideas but also of British trained experts and of the capital made available by the profits of the early and continuing industrialisation of Britain. It was supported, in many parts of the world, by the will and encouragement of successive British governments, who saw railways as significant both in imperial terms and for strategic purposes. b) It could be argued that the spread of railway transport was a symptom, rather than a cause of British foreign and imperial policy decisions. Britain’s economic world dominance in the middle years of the century meant that she would dictate rather than respond to events all over the world. As other countries began to compete on equal terms with Britain, the construction of railways was a measure of the globalism which would eventually reduce the international status and role of Britain. The British themselves saw the railways as an instrument of policy. For example, having committed themselves to the siege of Sevastopol in the Crimea, British commanders found the solution to carrying supplies up from the harbour to be the laying of a railway. The British had not objected to German investment in the Balkans and in the Turkish railways, since this could be seen as reducing the chance of Russian investment and thus influence in these key areas. The planning of the so-called Berlin–Baghdad railway was a little more worrying for the British, since it could open up the Persian Gulf area to German goods and enhance the accessibility of Germany as a market for oil; but many people thought that if Germany and Russia confronted each other

88 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

in the Arabian deserts they would have less energy for aggression within Europe. As A.W. Palmer wrote in 1962, ‘the project was, on the whole, a comparatively minor irritant in Anglo-German relations.’9 We may, however, note that competition over railway investment was a part of the growing antagonism between Britain and Germany, although the competition in ship building was a more direct issue in the years leading to the Great War. Once the war began, as in the Sudan, railway building became a part of the way the British army advanced, for example in Sinai, where they laid a railway and a water pipe line as they advanced towards Gaza in 1916. This investment in infrastructure was rewarded, if that is the appropriate term, with the granting of the mandate for this difficult part of the world once the war was over. Across the Empire, railway building went hand in hand both with empire building and with empire maintenance. In South Africa, following the discovery of gold in the Rand and diamonds in Griqualand, railways linked Cape Town and Port Elizabeth with Johannesburg, Mafeking and Durban. It was the Boers’ determination to capture the key railway cities of the British-held area around their republics which actually triggered the start of the war. Cecil Rhodes was intent upon a railway which would link the Cape with Cairo, a plan which so unnerved the Germans that they prevented the purchase of land in Belgian-held Congo for this purpose. Meanwhile, Rhodes ensured that railway building advanced northwards, opening up the areas of modern-day Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Similarly, in East Africa, the railways pushed inland from the Kenyan coast, reaching Lake Victoria and thus linking Uganda to the sea. Amazing engineering feats were undertaken in the difficult conditions of East Africa. In order to get trains across the Great Rift Valley, engineers used mechanisms derived from the inclined planes of the canal age to raise and lower the rolling stock. Despite the substantial colonial holdings of other European countries in Africa, more than 83 per cent of the railways built in the continent were British. In Asia, the figure was ‘over half’. British engineers designed and supervised railways from Beijing (Peking) to Shanghai, and from Shanghai to Guangzhou (Canton) and Hong Kong. But it was in India where railways were most clearly an aspect of imperial government. Plans were made in the 1850s for a railway network, which was effectively complete by the end of the century. A total of almost 40,000 miles of railways were built, linking the administrative towns with one another and with the frontier areas, as well as with the hill stations where the British spent the hot season, such as Simla, Darjeeling and Ootacamund. Designed to ensure the easy communications essential to smooth government, justice and tax collection, the railways rapidly changed the economy and society of India. The growing of tea and rubber in previously inaccessible areas was facilitated, and exports of cotton and jute were accelerated by ease of transport to the coast. Both in Australia and in Canada, the British government was prepared to guarantee the investment of the railways which made even the interiors of these great dominions accessible. Grain producers back in Britain might well have regretted these railways, which ensured their loss of markets. The railways of India were run by British managers, with native Indians holding only subordinate roles throughout this period. Thus they offer an example of the view held by almost all British politicians and administrators that India could never run its own affairs. On the other hand, it is possible that the railways accelerated the growth of nationalism, since they were accompanied by the same enhancement of other communications as in Britain and Europe. Newspapers and the

ESSAYS • 89

telegraph ensured that news spread rapidly and that leaders of the Nationalist movement could travel easily from place to place. Certainly, where there were demonstrations, the railways brought the troops which restored peace and took away to prison the leaders of the Indian independence movement. Wherever the British had influence or control they encouraged investment of British capital and British expertise in the building of railways. Only occasionally, however, did the building of the railways or the intention to build railways actually affect, rather than reflect, the conduct of British policy.

a) When and where did the British make use of their railway technology in the conduct of foreign policy? b) To what extent was Britain’s technological superiority reflected in the success of its overseas policies?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Note that while part (a) is concerned with railways, part (b), while obviously requiring you to deal with the railways, also refers to other aspects of British technology. Thus you will want to deal with shipping when you consider the imperial policies and the export of technology as part of the world-wide domination which Britain was able to exercise.

7. British exports a) b)

What were the main world-wide markets for British industrial goods in this period? Discuss the extent to which Britain merited the title ‘the workshop of the world’ in the second half of the nineteenth century.

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Given Britain’s substantial lead in the process of industrialisation, it is not surprising that it was exporting industrial goods across the world in the second half of the nineteenth century and that this domination only ended when other countries began to make good use of the expertise and machinery they purchased from Britain. The most durable market was the Empire, since it was expanding throughout the 1880s and 1890s as the ‘Scramble for Africa’ extended British holdings in East and Central Africa. Cottons and metal goods found a ready market in Africa. In India, there was a growing market for machinery and for machine tools, as well as for the expertise which built roads, bridges and irrigation waterworks. As the Indian coal and iron industries developed, they were supplied with the hardware they needed by Britain. At the same time, the Indian economy was distorted to supply the cash crops which Britain needed: jute was planted when, during and after the Crimean War, supplies of Russian jute were unavailable; indigo was supplied to the British textile industries. Further east, Britain found a ready market in Japan. Having been determinedly closed to Western influences by its shoguns until 1853, Japan was forced to engage with the West by threats from

90 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

the Americans, Russians, Dutch and British and, once confronted with the necessity, they adopted Western methods with such enthusiasm that in less than half a century they were able to defeat Russia in war. Almost all the machinery in Japan’s new textile and iron and steel factories was imported, much of it from Britain. Most of its ships were built in foreign yards, again mostly British, and 90 per cent of the trade in Japanese ports was handled by British traders enjoying extra-territorial rights of justice and taxation. A similar process took place in China, though the British part was less creditable since the opportunities for trade and importation came as a result of the opium wars and the handing over of ports along the coast of China as foreign bases. From these bases, British goods, expertise and investment entered China. Both North and South America were avid consumers of British manufactured goods, exchanging them for agricultural products and for raw materials. Argentina and Brazil, in particular, purchased textiles, railway expertise and rolling stock, and machinery. In Brazil, the demands of the European and particularly British markets encouraged plantation growth of rubber, until the British themselves transplanted the rubber trees to Asia and to the confines of their own empire. The USA and Canada also exchanged agricultural produce for British industrial goods, until the last decades of the century when their own industries offered severe competition in all the world-wide markets which Britain had come to consider as its own. Europe supplied the nearest and, for some time in the middle decades of the century, the largest markets for British industrial goods. France continued to import British coal in substantial amounts since its own coal reserves were hard to work and of less good quality, whether for coking or for steam, than British coal. The loss of many French iron ore deposits to Germany after 1871 ensured that France would continue to depend on Britain, although increasing amounts of pig iron was imported for conversion to steel in France. France also imported cotton machinery, although machinery for other textiles was manufactured in France. Germany’s industrialisation began with its railways, constructed with materials, experts and on some occasions, gangs of workers from Britain. Britain exported coal to Germany until well into the twentieth century. Until the 1890s, much of Germany’s shipping was made in Britain. Germany imported textile machinery from Britain, but also imported large amounts of finished textiles; only woollen production was strong in Germany and, even here, part-finished yarn was exported for manufacture in Britain. Although by the end of the nineteenth century other countries were beginning to compete with Britain, its industries supplied the wants of nations across the world. b) The term ‘the workshop of the world’ was one bestowed by contemporaries as they surveyed a world transported, clothed, entertained and warmed by British manufacturers and industrial goods. In 1870, finished textiles accounted for 54 per cent of British exports, iron and steel for 16 per cent, and machinery and other engineering products 8 per cent. J.H. Clapham referred as early as 1921 to ‘the self-confident, not to say self-satisfied, frame of mind in the England of 1860.’10 This level of national confidence came from over half a century of being the only industrialised country of any significance and ensured the conviction that free trade was the route to prosperity for all. Many agreements, for example with Japan and China, embodied a guarantee of free trade. Not until the last decades of the century did foreign competition, sometimes protected by restrictive import tariffs, make serious inroads into Britain’s industrial dominance.

ESSAYS • 91

The coal workings of north eastern France were begun in the 1850s, using imported British machinery, but never produced enough to enable France to stop importing British coal. The same was true of iron smelting, with France remaining a charcoal smelting country until the 1860s. Even by the 1890s, when French iron production had finally reached 1 million tons a year, much of it was exported to be processed into steel in Britain. And this was in spite of France’s enormous iron ore deposits. In machine making, too, France continued to rely on Britain until the First World War: 80 per cent of linen machinery was British and an even greater proportion of cotton machinery. Both locomotive engines and metal ships continued to be imported into France throughout the century. A similar pattern can be seen in trade with Germany, with the key difference being that German industries began to function autonomously earlier than those of France, assisted by the victorious wars of the 1860s and 1870s and its large and growing domestic market. In 1860, German pig iron production was only one seventh that of Britain. By 1890, its production was 50 per cent that of Britain, and by 1910 it had outstripped British levels. In this field, therefore, Britain’s status as workshop of the world had been eroded within half a century. The same is true in ship building. Textile production in Germany moved from the home to mills between the 1850s and the 1880s, but almost all the machinery was purchased from Britain. Only the introduction of protective tariffs ensured that British textiles did not swamp the young industry which British machines were helping to create. In the electrical industry, however, the situation was reversed. Germany’s early interest in electricity meant that its largest firm, the Allgemeine Elektrizitäts Gesellschaft, dominated world production of electrical goods, from light bulbs to generating machinery. Britain imported AEG machines and products from the 1880s onwards. The Empire was the natural, almost domestic, market for industrial goods. The machinery which irrigated the land and controlled the rivers, which powered the trains and built the bridges across Africa and South Asia, came from London. But so also did manufactured goods. In India, one of Gandhi’s targets in the Swaraj (independence) movement of the early twentieth century was the import of Lancashire textiles, which impoverished the hand spinners and weavers of India. As mentioned in the first part of this essay, British industries benefited from the forced opening of the markets of China and Japan. But the outcomes for British investment in these two countries were very different. In China, resistance and poverty meant that the markets remained small and unimportant. In Japan, expertise was seized upon and learned from until, after almost 50 years of thriving exports to Japan, including shipping and machinery, Britain found itself with a competitor rather than a customer. In the USA, avid demand for engineering products in the decades of westward expansion and railway development was followed by the imposition of protective tariffs in the 1860s, a measure of how aware the USA was of British dominance in world industry. Nevertheless, Britain continued to export goods to the USA. The advantages of early industrialisation were soon neutralised, and then it became almost inevitable that the enormous market and huge stores of raw materials of the USA would end Britain’s world domination. In 1870, Britain produced almost 32 per cent of the world’s manufacturing output, while the USA produced 22 per cent. By 1913, while those figures had more than reversed (Britain 14 per cent, USA 35 per cent), Britain was still the world’s greatest exporter, since much of US production was absorbed by its domestic market.

92 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Even in the years of apparent decline, therefore, Britain remained the world’s greatest exporter to the end of the century and beyond. And when this domination ended, Britain continued to be the banker, or at least the financial broker, of the world.

a) b)

What was the balance between imports and exports in Britain in the nineteenth century? How far is it true to say that Britain’s complacency left its economy very vulnerable to foreign competition?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Your answer to part (a) will need to take account of changes over this long period and also to bring in occasions when foreign competitors were disadvantaged by events which had nothing to do with Britain (such as the American Civil War). Part (b) can build on this by noting the dominance of Britain in world markets for the greater part of the century, leaving industrialists and exporters open to the accusation of complacency, particularly when it came to new methods, since the old systems had brought them so much profit.

8. The depression of the 1870s and 1880s What was the extent of the ‘economic depression’ of the 1870s and 1880s?

(90 marks)

A definition of ‘economic depression’ is essential before the question can be answered: the term is used when there is a general decline in trade and prosperity. If there is less trade, unemployment is likely to follow as businesses reduce their output. In turn, the reduction in spending power will reduce demand, thus bringing about a further contraction in production. A drop in prices is accompanied by a fall in returns from investments which leads to a further decline in purchasing. During the 1870s and 1880s, a major cause of depression in Europe was a slump in food prices; new developments such as refrigerated shipping and railways in South America and Australasia increased the amount of meat coming into Europe, while a combination of barbed wire and greater use of fertilisers radically boosted production of wheat in Northern America. At the same time, the demand for gold as a monetary unit (fuelled by the discovery of gold in California in 1849), rose to a level that could not be met by existing world supplies. This drove the price of other commodities down until the discovery of new deposits in the Rand area of South Africa began to restore the balance from 1884. Another ingredient of the depression was the forcing down of prices as Britain eventually began to face competition in industrial production from the USA and from Germany. While in Britain the financial institutions were not too seriously affected, throughout the rest of Europe, banking houses over-reached themselves and several collapsed, notably in Vienna and in Paris. European agriculture never restored itself in the face of worldwide competition and the massive economies of scale possible in the prairies and the pampas; on the other hand, the growing markets of the British and French overseas empires, particularly in Africa, enabled the industries of Europe to make a recovery which lasted until the outbreak of the First World War. Indeed, it is true to say that these years did not see major unemployment or a permanent reduction in demand or production in any industry.

ESSAYS • 93

The impression at the time was that the British economy was suffering from ‘a mortal disease’ (Randolph Churchill’s comment in 1884). In 1885, a Royal Commission was established by Parliament to look into ‘the extent, nature and probable cause of the depression now, or recently prevailing in various branches of trade and industry’.11 Since 1934, however, historians have suggested that there was no depression. H.L. Beales was the first to argue that the title ‘depression’ had been attached to a mere slowing down after 25 years of a booming economy. Certainly there were distinct signs of this slowing down. Between 1873 and 1897, the volume of British exports decreased every year and the visible deficit more than doubled. Prices, which had risen substantially between 1871 and 1873, then fell steadily for the next 23 years: in total prices dropped by nearly 30 per cent. These falls were the result of reductions in production and transport costs and were by no means disastrous. On the whole, they were absorbed by profit levels rather than by wages, and thus real wages actually improved. Phil Chapple suggests that real wages went up by 25–30 per cent in the 25 years following 1873.12 A further measure of depression, and one that marked the great depression of the 1930s, is rising unemployment. By this measure, there was no depression in the 1870s and 1880s. Unemployment certainly increased a little: from 5 per cent in the two decades 1850–70 to 7.2 per cent in the next two decades. (But these statistics should be considered in the light of the fact that unemployment figures were not formally collected and recorded until the twentieth century.) But since the working population of Britain was increasing at a rate of almost 10 per cent per decade, it is clear that new jobs were being created at a rapid rate. There must, however, have been a basis for the pessimism felt and expressed by contemporaries, and the main reasons for it seem to have been that Britain’s industries were growing at a slower rate than in the past, slower indeed than its competitors, and that productivity in Britain was recognisably lower than in Germany and the United States. Britain continued to export more than any other country to the end of the century, but its predominance was shrinking. This is not surprising, when we consider the huge and growing domestic market of the USA and the great natural resources of both the USA and Germany. Both these countries were prepared to introduce tariffs to protect domestic industries, something which ran counter to British economic thinking since the repeal of the Corn Laws. An aspect of the economy which does support the view of decline, if not of depression, is the lack of re-investment by British businesses. Because so many businesses were family owned, expenditure on life style improvements had the effect of reducing investment in new machinery and new technology. People with money to invest looked abroad, ironically to the prosperous competitors who were, apparently, damaging the British economy. The amount invested by British capitalists in the USA doubled during the 1880s, facilitated by the efficiency of the London money market. Meanwhile, the British continued to spin cotton with mules while their competitors moved over to ring spinning (a British invention). Similarly, in the British coal mines, hand cutting remained the norm, partly at least because of the small and complex seams in British pits. Contemporaries complained of the lack of technical education, compared to the state provision in Germany. Not until 1889 was the Technical Institutions Act passed. It seems likely, however, that it is reasonable to use the word depression when considering British agriculture. Of course a great deal of concern was expressed, since the landowning classes were so

94 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

well represented in both houses of Parliament. Farmers complained that the Education Act of 1870 was making cheap labour hard to find and that bad weather was affecting their profits (although in normal circumstances lower production would raise rather than lower prices). But the main cause of the decline was, as has been said, foreign competition. The price of wheat fell by 50 per cent between 1873 and 1900 and with it fell agricultural wages. More strikingly, the depression led to a massive emigration from the countryside. In the ten years after 1873, over 300,000 left the land, some moving into towns, others going further, to America, Canada or Australasia. By 1900, Britain imported over 50 per cent of the food it ate. Except for agriculture, the British economy did not experience a depression in the 1870s and 1880s. It experienced a slowing down of the remarkable rate of growth it had enjoyed in the previous decades and a recognition of the need to rethink some aspects of the industrial system. And after decades of being the only significant industrial economy in the world, it was forced to confront growing and energetic competition.

a) b)

For what reasons and to what extent did British production decline in the 1870s and 1880s? Consider the view that Britain nevertheless remained the dominant economic power of the world.

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Essay Plan Introduction: Evidence that there was such a decline. Para 1: Reasons connected with increasing obsolescence of British plant and machinery, arising from the early industrialisation, compared to newer machinery abroad. Para 2: Reasons connected with growing government regulation and increasing strength of trade unions. Para 3: Reasons connected with increasing overseas investment, reducing the capital available in Britain. This will link to the second part, allowing you to discuss: Para 4: Financial domination and the power of the British investor. Para 5: The industries which continued to be extremely competitive (such as ship building). Para 6: The aspects of the economy where Britain ceased to dominate and why. Conclusion: The extent to which Britain still dominated the world’s economies by the end of the nineteenth century.

9. Urbanisation a) b)

To what extent did Britain become an urban rather than a rural country in the nineteenth century? What impact did urbanisation have on the lives of the ordinary people?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

ESSAYS • 95

a) The question of whether Britain was a fully urban country by the end of the nineteenth century may be viewed in a variety of ways. In terms of statistics, urbanisation was close to complete by the end of the century. The population of the towns, approximately 35 per cent of the whole population in 1831, had risen to 50 per cent by 1851 and to over 80 per cent by the end of the century. The considerable population increase, approaching 10 per cent per decade, had no impact on country areas, which continued to lose their population throughout the period under consideration. As for the percentage who earned their living in the country pursuits of agriculture, forestry and fishing, this was already down to 28 per cent in 1831, shrinking to 22 per cent by 1851 and, following the great migrations and the agricultural difficulties of the 1870s and 1880s, down to around 9 per cent by the end of the century. The proportion of the national income earned by agriculture was reduced to just about 6 per cent by the beginning of the new century. Whereas in the first half of the nineteenth century most towns had modest populations, by the end of the century, urban populations dwelt increasingly in the large conurbations. Birmingham’s inhabitants increased from 70,000 to 760,000 in the century, and Glasgow’s from 77,000 to over 900,000. London saw the most striking growth of all. With a population already over 1 million in 1801, it held almost 2 million by 1831 and well over 6 million by the start of the twentieth century. Almost 20 per cent of the population of Britain lived in London. London was also seen as an exciting place to visit – over 6 million people visited the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park in its six months of life, and it is thought that about half of these visitors came from outside London. It was believed to be a place of economic opportunity and was thus a magnet for country people seeking a new life. On the other hand, English people appear to have continued to idealise the country and country life. William Blake had written early in the century of building a new Jerusalem in ‘England’s green and pleasant land’, dismissing the ‘dark satanic mills’ which had brought Britain prosperity. Literature and art followed his line throughout the century, Charles Dickens ensuring in novel after novel that his characters escaped from the dark dangers of the town to a country idyll; William Morris and the Pre-Raphaelites depicted the attractions of rural life and artisanal craftwork rather than industrial processes. The growth of the suburbs, facilitated by the development of the railways, enabled town workers to imagine that they were living the country life when in fact they were merely expanding the sprawl and population of the towns. Britain was, as it remains today, undoubtedly urban by the end of the nineteenth century. But this did not prevent townsfolk from hankering after a country life and using the new forms of transport for day trips into the countryside. And through the twentieth into the twenty-first century, the image of country life as somehow better and more worthwhile persists, despite the fact that wealth is created in the towns rather than in the countryside. b) The impact of urbanisation upon the lives of ordinary people was a varied one. Through the period, government awareness of the problems of town life grew, and government interference, by legislation or by empowering local authorities to take action, expanded into almost all aspects of life. It is reasonable, therefore, to suggest that effects of urbanisation which were unpleasant at the start of the period had been ameliorated by the time of the First World War The motive force which sent people into the towns was the search for jobs. While the period of waterpower had ensured that factories were placed where rivers ran fast, the development of steam

96 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

pushed other priorities to the fore, and industries were sited where transport of raw materials and finished goods could be achieved easily and where a workforce could live within easy reach of the works. The towns themselves, as well as the factories within them, offered employment: shops needed workers, and lodging houses and laundry services grew to provide for the growing number of inhabitants. As management of the factories became a more sophisticated and specialist matter, the middle-class managers needed both domestic servants in their homes and clerks in their offices; and the transport infrastructure of the towns – the suburban railway links, the omnibuses and, from the 1860s, the underground railways in London all offered employment. Outworkers, tailors and tailoresses, shirtmakers, bonnet makers, all found more customers where there were large numbers of people. Even in the countryside around, the towns enhanced opportunities, and market gardens and orchards found a ready market for the food they produced. As can be seen in any large town across the world to this day, there were more opportunities for those without employment in a town than in the country. The novels of Dickens are crowded with characters who scrape a living on the edges of urban society: the crossing sweepers clearing a passage through the horse manure for pedestrians anxious to keep their skirts and boots clean; the beggars, horse holders, garbage scavengers; and of course the range of criminals who found more to do in towns than in small country villages. The rapid growth of the towns meant that appropriate accommodation was in short supply. It is important not to imagine some rural paradise from which people moved to the slums of the towns: most labourers’ cottages in the countryside were squalid in the extreme, with mud floors and outside privies being standard to the end of the century and beyond. But conditions in the towns were made worse by the overcrowding and by the complete lack of any infrastructure. In one street in Leeds in 1839, there were 340 people sharing three privies and the nearest water was over 400 metres away; in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales, in 1844, an enquiry found one privy to a hundred people to be common. Where there were drainage systems of any kind, sewage was often piped into the nearest river. As for drinking and washing water, in London, Rotherhithe had no water supply at all until 1843 and the inhabitants took all their water in buckets from the Thames. Some towns had pumps fed by artesian wells; but in St Pancras in London, for example, there were a total of 13 pumps for 170,000 people. By 1850, however, government action had begun to deal with these problems in response to the terrible epidemics of cholera and typhoid which, it was beginning to be recognised, were connected with contaminated water supplies. The government also began to tackle the problems of overcrowded and unhealthy housing. Laws prohibiting cellar dwellings and defining the term ‘unfit for human habitation’ were a feature of the 1870s and 1880s; increased powers put into the hands of local authorities meant that a forward-looking council, such as Birmingham under Joseph Chamberlain’s leadership, could begin to clear and replace slums. Improvements were slow, however, and for every borough council improving housing, there were others permitting speculative builders to put up cheap and inadequate homes for rent to the poorest. And regulations about sub-letting were much less stringent than we should expect today. An inspection of census records for any part of London shows that what today we would consider to be overcrowding was in this period considered to be quite normal. In Camden, London, for example, the 1871 census reveals one six-room house with the following: a carpenter, his wife, four sons and two daughters; a clerk, his wife and two daughters; a house decorator, his wife and a lodger.

ESSAYS • 97 Figure 3.6 Exterior of St Pancras station, 1908

Less tangible impacts may also be imagined. Contemporaries concerned with the morals of the poor were concerned about the risks of increased promiscuity when young people moved away from the overseeing eyes of their parents and joined the faceless communities of the big towns. Opportunities for drunkenness and other vices were enhanced and the spirit of community was lost. On the other hand, entertainment and novel experiences were more available in the towns than in the constrained circumstances of village life; and while hours might be long, unlike the experience of farm work, the leisure hours were guaranteed, especially as government legislation moved in to control working conditions of all kinds. For Britain’s town dwellers, government action ensured that living conditions improved during the second half of the nineteenth century. And whether or not life in the towns appears dirty, dangerous and unpleasant, it is clear that it continued to exercise a magnetic pull on country dwellers, even in years when agriculture was thriving, and especially in years of agricultural downturn: the steadily growing percentages of town dwellers and town earners confirms this.

a) b)

How do you explain the rapid growth of towns in Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century? Was everyday life better in the towns or in the countryside in this period?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

While part (a) requires a very straightforward explanation, do not forget to include the concept of commuting, as the railways improved, as well as the movement of labour into towns as factories grew. Part (b) is more searching, and the key world here is ‘better’. You will need to define what makes life ‘better’ and use your various definitions as the bases of your arguments.

98 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Part 3: Sources A range of sources has been grouped into two sections, with a variety of questions attached to each. You should find it possible to adapt and make use of each set of sources to allow you to practise the pattern of source questions adopted in the examinations for which you are preparing.

1. Troubles and advances in the development of the railways Source A: Atrocious conduct in a railway company (1849)

It is incredible to what lengths the blind passions of great public companies will lead them. The public narrowly escaped a frightful catastrophe on Tuesday in the opening of the Great Northern line, when the trains were about to run from Doncaster to Leeds. The Superintendent at Doncaster, having heard it whispered that something was going on at the junction of the Doncaster line with the Midland Railway at Methley, sent over a special engine before the trains and found the servants of the Midland Company had removed the points at the junction, so that had the train proceeded thither it would inevitably have run off the road. This, we understand, was done without any notice, in consequence of some dispute between the two companies, for which the Midland Company would have made the lives of Her Majesty’s subjects pay. Such an outrage must surely meet with due punishment. Source B: The Times, 26 November 1857

Yesterday the London and North Western company placed a couple of city policemen at the junction of the South Junction and Altrincham railway and their own to prevent passengers getting out of the trains of the latter company at the London-road station under pain of prosecution. A lady travelling over the South Junction line to London-road station yesterday morning on alighting to cross the station and change carriages was stopped by these policemen and compelled to give her name and address before she could obtain egress from the South Junction terminus. When she had given her name and address, she was informed that she would be prosecuted for trespass . . . About a fortnight ago 200 men removed a platform at the London-road where passengers from Warrington, Altrincham and other places west of Manchester were set down. Source C: Railway battle at Bradfield (1865)

Mr Munro refused to give up possession of the works; and on the other hand Mr Furness, the new contractor, called upon the company to give him the necessary induction to his undertaking. After some unsuccessful parleying it became evident that force alone could effect a dislodgement; and the 11th of April was chosen for the fight. The late contractor’s force consisted of some 50 navvies under the command of the agent, the veteran ‘General’ Fryer . . . On the part of the company, some 60 lumpers or longshore men had been brought up from Harwich, the command of whom was taken by Engineer General Cooke . . . General Fryer, in order not to be taken in the rear, chose the head of a cutting as his position of defence . . . The position was a somewhat difficult one to turn, and several smart skirmishes were engaged in without any decisive result.

SOURCES • 99

At length, however, the company’s forces . . . made a rush and captured General Fryer, while the navvies, with equal determination and apparently equal strength seized him from behind . . . and truly the luckless general seemed in imminent peril either of strangulation or dismemberment. Eventually the lumpers prevailed over the navvies, who fled in disorder, leaving their General to be ‘lifted’ ignominiously beyond the Company’s boundaries. Source D: A twentieth-century historian describes improvements in passenger comfort

A most significant development was the elimination of the second class on English railways and the admission of third-class passengers to all the amenities that the railways provided or were about to provide – upholstered carriages, express trains, lavatories, corridor trains, refreshment cars, etc. This process started with the actions of the Midland Railway between 1872 and 1875; the other lines protested but had to follow suit. Source E: A modern historian identifies one effect of the railways

The developed railway network facilitated the evolution of postal services. Telegraph wires ran alongside the railway lines, carrying urgent commercial intelligence, swift personal and family communications, and a growing supply of national and international news to the expanding provincial press. The number of letters increased; by 1871 there was an annual average of 32 letters per head for the whole population and this almost doubled by the end of the century.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) Explain what is meant by ‘navvies’ and ‘lumpers or longshore men’ (Source C) (3 b) Study sources A and B. Discuss the comparative reliability of a local newspaper and a national newspaper in describing episodes such as these (5 c) Study sources A, B and C. What do these sources tell you about the attitudes of railway companies towards one another and towards the public? (5 d) How does source D support the impression of competition between the railway companies expressed in sources A, B and C? (5 e) Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the view that ‘passenger transport, rather than carriage of freight was the key function of the nineteenth-century railways’ (12

marks)

marks)

marks) marks)

marks)

ANSWERS

a) The word ‘navvies’ means labourers employed in major or heavy projects. The term dates from the period of canal building, when such workers were engaged in constructing the ‘navigations’. Longshoremen are dock workers, particularly where the work is done at a seashore dock

100 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

rather than at a river harbour (in this case they come from the seaport of Harwich). The obvious implication is that both sides have hired thugs to do their ‘dirty work’ for them. b) In general terms it is reasonable to expect The Times to be less affected by local vested interests than a local paper, whose fortunes would be bound up in local business and politics. It would be helpful, for example, to know the identity of the proprietor of the local paper, and whether he had any direct financial involvement in the fortunes of one or other of the new railway companies. On the other hand, the local reporter would have access to more details than a national paper, and would be likely to cover a local story in more depth. As far as the accuracy of the details is concerned, it was common practice for the London papers to make use of reports sent in by members of the public from the provinces, rather than using their own reporters, leading, perhaps, to less rigour. Certainly, as these two examples suggest, the local report would be likely to express a greater involvement in the issues than a distant, London-based paper. The use of phrases like ‘blind passion’ and ‘outrage’ are a measure of this involvement. The Times was less likely to demand action by the law over an issue such as this, in contrast to the last sentence of source A. Where such matters did lead to legal action, it is possible for the historian to compare the newspaper reports, whether local or national, with the court records. c) All three of the sources show different facets of the same attitude. As far as other companies were concerned, there appears to have been no limit to the methods each company was prepared to use to gain an advantage. Physical damage to the property of other companies, whether removing points or removing platforms, could, as in source C, extend to violence and personal injury. The passengers seem to have been regarded with equal disdain although they are only mentioned in the first two sources. The threat to the lives of the public was, happily, averted in Source A; but source B describes harassment of the passengers, apparently by the police rather than by the servants of the company. The fact that the passenger concerned was a lady would have been significant in those days of female fragility! d) At first sight, source D bears little relationship to the violence and danger of the three earlier sources. It is concerned with the comfort of passengers, rather than threats to their lives and wellbeing. But the explanation of why these comforts were extended across the railway system is entirely to do with the cut-throat competition between the lines. Third-class travel had been basic and uncomfortable, in open carriages, with wooden seats and no amenities. Once the Midland Company offered comforts to its third-class passengers, other companies, under protest, felt compelled to follow suit. It is interesting to notice that it was the Midland Company who were the villains in source A, prepared to remove the points and risk the lives of the public in the quest for customers. e) These sources would suggest that passenger carriage was the sole concern of the railway companies in the nineteenth century. Source A refers to disputes over ownership of lines directly affecting the safety of ‘Her Majesty’s subjects’, since the trains using the track where the points were removed were passenger trains. The second source suggests a more direct attempt to put competitors out of business by restricting the rights of passengers to make through journeys across the lines of different companies, while the third is concerned with improvements to the conditions, again, of passengers. But this particular selection of sources makes no attempt to consider the railway system as a whole. There were similar disputes and threats of violence between companies concerned with freight carriage alone, such as the coal carrying companies of South Wales, and the predominantly livestock and foodstuff carrying lines linking Essex and Suffolk with the huge

SOURCES • 101

markets of London. On the other hand, compared with both road and canal travel, the great speed of the railways made them particularly attractive to passengers; the number of passenger journeys went up 400 per cent between 1850 and 1871. The railways also changed the way of life for many people, notably those who worked in the big cities. It became possible for the clerks and bankers of the City of London to live in the more salubrious settings of Surrey and Kent and still make their way to work in the mornings. Samuel Smiles, the philanthropist and author, wrote in 1875 that the railways ‘virtually reduced England to a sixth of its size’ and passengers were able to make use of the railways for their leisure. Pleasure excursions, particularly to the seaside, were common from as early as the 1840s: Thomas Cook’s first excursion was arranged in 1841. It is also worth noting that the first use of railways for troop movement was as early as 1848 – in the face of the threat of violence in that revolutionary year – and the entire conduct of wars from the Crimea to South Africa and back to Belgium was affected by the use of railways. Conscription, training and deployment of troops in the First World War relied on the railways to move the men rapidly and efficiently to where they were required, with a resultant decrease in problems of supply and accommodation in transit. But passenger transport, whether for pleasure or business, was not the sole function of the railways, and the carriage of freight rapidly became of prime importance to their profitability. Where freight was durable, the speed with which it was transported was of lesser importance than the price, and industries geared to the speed of delivery of the canals did not immediately perceive the need for the rapid transit of rail freight. Cotton continued to arrive by canal in Manchester long after the completion of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. And while coal was bound up in the story of the railways, until the twentieth-century development of diesel locomotives, much coal continued to be carried by canal (in South Wales, into the 1890s). In general, however, the speed and capacity of the railways was unbeatable and by the 1850s much freight had moved from canal and road to the railways. It is also worth considering a third strand in the importance of the railways. As well as supplying efficient and rapid transport for both people and freight, the railways became important employers and educators. There were 65,000 railway workers according to the census of 1851, and this total more than doubled by the end of the century. The railways also provided the training ground for surveyors, engineers and mechanics. Thus, as always with historical evidence, we can see that the selection of sources affects the impression which they give. These sources alone convey a misleading impression of the relative importance of passenger transport to the whole railway sector in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the carriage of passengers continued to be a central and essential part of the business of the railways.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, OR FOR AQA, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a)

Study sources A and B. What physical damage, according to these reports, was being inflicted upon one another by rival railway companies?

(25 marks)

102 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

b)

c)

d)

Discuss the value to the historian of reports from provincial newspapers such as sources A and C. To what extent does the satirical tone of source C enhance or reduce its utility? (25 marks) How far do these sources demonstrate the need for government intervention in the railway industry? When and how did the government intervene? (25 marks) Using these sources and your own knowledge, consider the view that the benefits brought by the railways more than compensated for the difficulties experienced in the period of their development. (60 marks)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, OR FOR THE AQA EXAMINATION, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE D a)

b) c)

What can you learn from the source about the conditions in which the poorer members of the public travelled before the ‘elimination of the second class’? (5 marks) What laws were passed by governments in this period to regulate the construction of and travel on the railways? (7 marks) ‘The explosive growth of the railways provided benefits for the public but still greater benefits for investors.’ Discuss this view. (18 marks)

2. The problem of foreign competition Source F: Edward Sullivan, ‘Isolated Free Trade 1881’

Now France and America and Belgium have got machinery, our machinery . . . and our capital, and they are sending us a yearly increasing surplus that is driving our own goods out of our own markets; and every year they are more completely closing their markets to our goods . . . When they see industries dying out under Free Trade in England, and springing to vigorous life under protection in France, Belgium, Germany and America, when they see the ruin of agriculture, the depression of all manufacturing industries . . . capitalists preferring investments in foreign countries to those in their own . . . do not look much further for arguments against Free Trade. Source G: E.E. Williams, Made in Germany, 1896

Take observations in your surroundings . . . You will find that the material of some of your clothes was woven in Germany . . . The toys and the dolls made in Germany . . . Descend to your domestic depths, and you shall find your very drain pipes German made . . . Roam the house over and the fateful mark will greet you at every turn . . . ‘manufactured in Germany’.

SOURCES • 103 Source H: Report of the Richmond Commission, 1882

All the witnesses we have examined have agreed in ascribing it mainly to a succession of unfavourable seasons. One witness says: it is really owing to the absence of sun and the presence of an extra quantity of rain . . . Nothing in fact in the last two years has matured properly . . . Next to unfavourable seasons as a cause of agricultural depression, foreign competition is alleged to have produced the most injurious effect . . . The unexpectedly large importations, chiefly from America, have, by lowering prices of home produce greatly increased agricultural depression . . . The effect of the Education Act has been referred to by several employers of labour as seriously interfering with farm work . . . There prevails complete uniformity of conviction as to the great extent and intensity of the distress which has fallen on the agricultural community. Source I: An historian of the 1930s

Free Trade had been an article of British faith – whether Liberal or Conservative – since the repeal of the Corn Laws: it had been a faith to which America and Europe had subscribed because they were in no position to do anything else; it had been rooted in the backwardness of other countries. To Englishmen of the nineteenth century it had represented that combination of the ideal and the profitable which is peculiarly English – while it stilled their consciences, it stuffed their pockets. From time to time the cry of Protection had been raised, but always in lean years.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a)

b) c) d)

Study source F. What reasons does this source give for the fact that other countries were catching up with Britain’s economic lead? To what extent does source H support the views expressed in the sources F and G? How useful to the historian are propaganda pamphlets such as those quoted in sources F and G? Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss why and to what extent the British economy appeared to be moving into recession in the 1870s.

(10 marks) (25 marks) (25 marks)

(60 marks)

ANSWERS

a) Source F offers three main reasons. First, the exportation of British technology (‘our machinery’) and of British capital investment, with ‘capitalists preferring investments in foreign countries to those in their own’. Second, the source refers to the spiral of foreign companies exporting goods to Britain, which drive British firms out of business and so provide even greater British markets for foreign goods. Third, the most important reason is that the foreign businesses enjoy the benefits of protection, so that British goods cannot enter their countries and their capital cannot be invested abroad.

104 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

b) Source H has a different purpose from sources F and G. It is a collection of testimonies from people involved in agriculture, and it is solely concerned with agriculture rather than industry. It does identify large importations of agricultural produce, especially from the USA, as a problem, but does not use these testimonies to argue for protection against free trade as the other two sources do. The most acute problem is seen to be the weather, which has prevented crops ripening. Of course these adverse weather conditions would particularly affect arable farming, which was experiencing the most competition from the USA. Neither source F nor source G mentions anything as non-political as the weather; nor do they mention the Education Act which, by making education available under the 1870 Act and compulsory in some areas under the 1881 Act, was reducing the possibility of using child labour. There seems to be a suggestion here that government action has done harm, whereas the other two sources are complaining of government inaction. Source H is less single-minded in its assessment of free trade and more balanced in tone. c) Leaflets such as those quoted in Sources F and G were published cheaply and circulated through interested groups as well as through the booksellers. The authors might give public lectures and then sell copies of the literature on the same occasion. They are useful to historians in that they outline specific points of view, often in a lurid and popularised way. But they seldom put forward mainstream opinions, since they were the channel for extreme and radical ideas, rather than those which might be the subject of parliamentary debate. They are therefore a useful insight into fringe topics and minority opinions. They are of use in that they reveal a level of xenophobia which was clearly acceptable to the readership. In particular, source G refers repeatedly to ‘Germany’ which was, after all, in no political sense an enemy in the 1890s. Source F achieves a similar rhetorical effect with the repetition of strings of foreign countries, giving an impression of a beleaguered Britain. Given that free trade was ‘an article of British faith’ as Dangerfield says, it is to informal material such as this that the historian must look to find the popular opinions which encouraged the ‘tariff reformers’ as the century came to an end. d) All of these sources imply that there are difficulties in the British economy, but there is little suggestion here that it is as serious as a recession. Sources G and F describe how very many foreign goods are entering the country, but there is no suggestion that there is a shortage of purchasing power in Britain; on the contrary, the British are finding plenty of money to purchase foreign goods and to invest in foreign enterprises. Source I, written in the 1930s, in another period of economic difficulty, suggests that for British writers to be calling for economic protection is a sign of ‘lean years’ since in prosperous times free trade was popular with all parts of society. Source H is concerned with the aspect of the economy most clearly perceived at the time to be in difficulties, namely agriculture. And here there is certainly evidence of an economic downturn. The price of wheat fell by 50 per cent between 1873 and 1900. Agricultural wages also went down, which led to a substantial depopulation of the countryside. The decade following 1873 saw over 300,000 people leaving the land. At the same time, the importation of food increased rapidly. By 1900, Britain imported over 50 per cent of its food. As far as industry was concerned, there were signs of a slowing down of the economy, though scarcely a recession. The volume of British exports fell every year between 1873 and 1897 and the trade deficit in everything except banking and finance more than doubled. Prices fell a total of about 30 per cent in the last three decades of the nineteenth century. But these falls were, on the whole, the result of reductions in production and transport costs and were not, therefore, a sign of an economy in depression. The rise in real wages – by 25–30 per cent in the 25 years following

SOURCES • 105

1873 – ensured that there was plenty of consumer demand, even if that demand was met by foreign goods. At the same time, the creation of new jobs more than kept pace with the growth in the working population (although precise figures on unemployment were not officially collected until the next century). It is nevertheless true that there was a perception of a downturn, and a reason for this was that productivity in Britain was recognisably lower than in Germany and the USA. Observers remarked that there was a lack of initiative and new ideas in British industry: William Perkin’s aniline dyes were made in Germany because British firms were reluctant to accept new ideas. And while Britain continued to export more than any other country to the end of the century, others were perceptibly catching up. These sources give an overstated view of the problems confronting the British economy: source H does so because it concentrates on agriculture, which was suffering a serious downturn; sources F and G, however, are pessimistic because it suits the case they are trying to make.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d) e)

Study Source H. Explain how ‘The Education Act’ was ‘seriously interfering with farm work’ by the date of this report. Use your own knowledge to explain why people at the end of the 1870s were concerned about the economic state of Britain. Compare sources F and G. What was the purpose these two leaflets? How far do the two authors achieve their aims? Study Sources B and C. Compare their value as evidence to the historian seeking to explain British attitudes to free trade. Do you agree that free trade was popular in Britain in the nineteenth century only because of British economic superiority? Explain your answer by using both the sources and your own knowledge.

(3) (5) (5) (5)

(12)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, OR FOR THE AQA EXAMINATION, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE F a) How fully does Source F explain the reasons for the depression of the 1870s? (5) b) What were the indicators which made people believe that there was an economic depression in Britain in the 1870s? (7) c) Consider the view that, by the 1870s, Britain had ceased to dominate the economies of the world. (18)

106 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Part 4: Historical skills 1. Role play: a new railway in our area? This activity has two purposes. First, it gives you an opportunity to consider the wide-ranging impact of the growth of the railways on all aspects of the economic and social life of Britain. Second, it provides a forum for discussion which will allow you to develop your listening and public speaking in sharing the results of your research with the rest of your group. The year is 1852. There is to be a public meeting to discuss whether approval should be given for the construction of a new railway line connecting your area to the main railway network. Each of you should represent one of the characters from the list below. You may decide that the characters should be allocated randomly, or you may decide to allow each member of the group to choose. When you have your part, think about what your general attitudes to life are, as well as what you think about the advantages and disadvantages of a railway. Then you should prepare a brief talk, which expresses your views and deals with any points which you think might be raised by people whose ideas differ from yours. After each of you has had your say, there may be time for general discussion. Or, if members of the public have been allowed to attend your meeting, you may decide to take points from the floor. • • • • • • • • •

An industrialist. You own a large textile factory with several hundred employees. A textile worker. You are also a member of the local brass band. A lord. Your country mansion is on the outskirts of the town. You spend the hunting and shooting season here. One of the tenants on the lord’s estate. You farm some land and also earn extra money assisting the gamekeepers and working in the stables. A retired colonel. As a young man, you fought in the wars against Napoleon and you regard yourself as something of an expert in military strategy. One of the local doctors. You took your entire family (wife and several children) to visit the Great Exhibition last year. One of the owners of the local canal company. Your boats carry both raw materials and finished goods for the textile factory, and you also transport coal from the nearby coal mine. A miner from the nearby coal mine. The local Church of England vicar. You see yourself as the guardian of the public morals of your area. You are also one of the guardians of the local workhouse.

It will be sensible to write a report of your meeting, perhaps in the form of a newspaper report for the local journal, or simply in tabular form, summarising the arguments on both sides and the conclusions reached.

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 107

2. Making sense of numbers It is always useful to be able to manipulate numbers and statistics and to show that you understand the different ways in which numerical information can be deployed and used. Below are some figures about population growth in Britain, taken from the census. (The figures have been rounded to the nearest half million.) 1. 2.

3.

Show each of these figures as a percentage increase on the previous decade. Construct a graph to show the development and use it to comment on whether it is reasonable to speak of any decade as a period of ‘a population explosion’. (You will find that you can do these calculations with a spreadsheet programme such as Microsoft Excel.) What reason can you suggest for the very small increase between 1841 and 1851?

Census year 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911

Total population of the UK 24 million 27 million 27.5 million 30 million 33 million 35 million 38 million 41.5 million 45.5 million

References for Chapter 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

S.B. Saul, The Myth of the Great Depression, Macmillan, London, 1969 G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England, Methuen, London, 1962, p. 250 Quoted in Charles Hadfield, The Canal Age, David and Charles, London, 1968, p. 151 Charles Hadfield, The Canal Age, David and Charles, London, 1968, p. 80 Charles Hadfield, The Canal Age, David and Charles, London, 1968, p. 69 Quoted in Patrick Robertson (ed.), The Shell Book of Firsts, Ebury Press and Michael Joseph, London, 1974 p. 153 Quoted in Elizabeth Roberts, Women’s Work 1840–1940, Macmillan, London, 1988, p. 19 E.H. Hunt: British Labour History II 1815–1914, p. 17, quoted in Elizabeth Roberts, Women’s Work 1840–1940, Macmillan, London, 1988, p. 21 A.W. Palmer, A Dictionary of Modern History, Barrie and Jenkins, London, 1962, p. 30 J.H. Clapham, An Economic History of France and Germany, CUP, Cambridge, 1921, p. 233 A Dictionary of Modern History, Barrie and Jenkins, London, 1962 Phil Chapple, The Industrialisation of Britain 1780–1914, Hodder and Stoughton, London 1999, pp. 106–8

108 • THE AGE OF THE RAILWAYS, 1846–1918

Sources A. Doncaster Chronicle and Farmers’ Journal. Friday 7 December 1849, quoted in Geoffrey Body, Great Railway Battles, Silver Link Publishing, Kettering, 1994, p. 93 B. The Times, 26 November 1857 C. The Essex Standard, 12 April 1865, quoted in Geoffrey Body, Great Railway Battles, Silver Link Publishing, Kettering, 1994, pp. 163–4 D. G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England, Methuen, London 1962, pp. 145–6 E. Norman McCord, British History 1815–1906, OUP, Oxford, 1991 F. Quoted in Phil Chapple, The Industrialisation of Britain, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1999, p. 95 G. E.E. Williams, Made in Germany, 1896, quoted in Phil Chapple, The Industrialisation of Britain, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1999 p. 95 H. The Report of the Richmond Commission 1882, quoted in Phil Chapple, The Industrialisation of Britain, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1999, p. 109 I. George Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Constable and Co., London, 1961, p. 10

Chapter 4

Public Health and Social Policy, 1846–1919

110 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

Among all the changes of this period in British history, perhaps the most remarkable is the growing acceptance that it was the duty of government to protect the physical wellbeing of the people. Precedents were set in the 1830s, and even before, for safeguarding some of the most vulnerable, that is some women and children, in their workplaces. Gradually, however, this responsibility was extended to cover all working people, and then their towns, their homes and even their family lives. Trends were set which were to reach their high point with the formation of the ‘welfare state’ in the twentieth century and were to survive even when demands to ‘roll back the state’ became fashionable in the twenty-first. The purpose of this chapter is to bring together all the social and public health reforms of the entire period covered by this book. Although it is possible to identify party political differences in the approach to some issues, on the whole the social reforms had their own momentum, with governments adding to and refining the legislation of their predecessors and building on research commissioned before they came to power. Two distinct periods of reform are, however, discussed in the essays section. The ministries of Gladstone and Disraeli were characterised by a wealth of legislation, and it is interesting to consider the extent to which there were ‘party political’ differences; and the Liberal ministries of 1906–14 make a change in the direction of policy which merits a more specific discussion.

Historical background Public health Medicine and the medical profession Poverty and the Poor Law Education Workplace reforms The impact of the trade unions Contemporary arguments for and against social reform

Essays 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Public health and government policy Cholera and the work of Dr John Snow The Poor Law Education Workplace reforms

6. 7. 8. 9.

Trade unionism Social reform in the ministries of Gladstone and Disraeli Social reform and the ‘great’ Liberal ministry Proponents and opponents of reform

Sources 1. 2.

The effects of the Poor Law Changes in education

Historical skills 1.

Constructing a ‘spider chart’ to demonstrate how reforms are linked to one another

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919 • 111

Chronology 1847 1847 1848 1850 1853 1859 1862 1867 1867 1870 1871 1871 1871 1872 1872 1875 1875 1875 1876 1876 1880 1881 1887 1889 1889 1890 1891 1897 1899 1900 1901 1901 1902 1906 1906 1906 1908 1908 1911 1912 1913 1918

Establishment of the Poor Law Board Factory Act Public Health Act Factory Act Factory Act Peaceful Picketing made legal The Revised Code for Education Factory Extension Act Workshop Regulation Act Forster’s Education Act Trade Union Act Criminal Law Amendment Act Control of Poor Law taken over by Local Government Board Adulteration of Food, Drink and Drugs Act Mines Act Factory Act Sale of Food and Drugs Act Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act Sandon’s Education Act Cruelty to Animals Act Mundella’s Education Act Mines Act Mines Act Technical Instruction Act Dockers’ strike Housing of the Working Classes Act Education Act Allotments Act Sale of Food and Drugs Act Mines Act Factory Act Taff Vale case Balfour’s Education Act Trade Disputes Act Workmen’s Compensation Act School Meals Act, and Medical Inspections (Schools) Act Old Age Pensions Act Mines Act National Insurance Act Mines Act Trade Union Act Fisher’s Education Act

112 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

Part 1: Historical background The amount of legislation produced in this period was greater than at any earlier time, and the rate of legislation accelerated as time went on. The reasons for this increase cannot be found merely in the existence of a need for change, as many of the problems were not new; rather they can be explained by the cumulative nature of legislation. Once one aspect of life, or public need, began to be regulated, further changes and rules were likely to be introduced to ‘fine tune’ what was being done, and other needs were recognised. In addition, there was a growing public awareness of the need for reform, and once the franchise was extended, this awareness could be voiced in Parliament. Outside the House of Commons, too, pressure groups emerged, which had sufficient influence to affect decisions made in government. The growing numbers of trade unionists were one such instrument of pressure.

Public health As industrialisation led to urbanisation, towns grew and expanded without any noticeable planning. Water supplies and sewage disposal systems intended for the small towns of the Middle Ages were dealing with the needs of hundreds of thousands of people. The insanitary conditions of the towns had been brought into sharp emphasis by the rapid spread of disease, notably cholera, and by the growing recognition that contaminated water was a contributory factor. On the whole, the attempts of central government to compel local ratepayers to make improvements – as with the 1848 Public Health Act – were met with resistance, but grants-in-aid proved more helpful and the examples of such pioneering councils as that of Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham showed what could be achieved. A series of acts in the later part of the nineteenth century improved environments, particularly in towns and industrial areas.

Medicine and the medical profession A key personality in the fight for improved public health and sanitation was Dr John Snow. He had seen the first ever outbreak of cholera as a medical student in Yorkshire, but it was as a doctor with a practice among the poor in central London that he worked out how it spread. His book on the subject was widely read, although it took several further outbreaks before his conviction of the link between cholera and sewage-polluted drinking water was fully accepted. The painstaking methods he applied are still used by epidemiologists today, though of course he had no computers to ‘crunch’ his numbers for him; his method for the collection of statistics was the same as that used by Edwin Chadwick and his staff in his 1842 report. The whole medical profession was making sure that it was seen as respectable by putting in place mechanisms of self-government, and Parliament approved and assisted this trend. Before the 1850s there was very little regulation, although as early as 1815 the Apothecaries had provided a register of people practising as apothecaries, though there was no control. The Medical Directory was published from 1845, and the Medical Register Act of 1858 established a formal register of those with qualifications, even if it did not prevent those without from practising! The act established

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 113

a General Medical Council to oversee the profession, but it failed to gain control of the universities and training schools, which remained in the hands of the medical hierarchy. The autonomy of the medical elite may be one reason why it has always been easier to establish hospitals than to put in place thorough mechanisms for the prevention of ill health.1 Its effects were to be repeated in 1948 when the establishment of a National Health Service also failed to control the hierarchy of medicine. Other aspects of medical practice were a matter of government concern. In 1832, the Anatomy Act had been passed amidst great controversy: it made available to teachers of anatomy the corpses of unclaimed paupers dying in hospital. This reduced the incidence of the crime of bodysnatching, while at the same time embodying the utilitarian principle that the poor could at least be useful in death. The Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 was a further step in the regulation of medical and scientific practice. This licensed and authorised limited animal experimentation and was strongly opposed by an anti-vivisection lobby, but was deemed to be necessary to control and supervise what was already happening. The issue of animal experimentation remains extremely controversial in the twenty-first century; it could be argued now, as it was in 1876, that if animal experimentation is to continue, as seems probable, it may be better for it to happen in countries like Britain where there is at least some regulation. Popular anxiety about another aspect of public health meant that there had been less protest at the passing of the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864 and 1866 than that which greeted the Cruelty to Animals Act. The Contagious Diseases Acts gave the police the right to have a doctor examine, without her consent, a woman suspected of prostitution, and to have her confined for up to three months if she was found to have a disease. The indignation expressed by such women as Dr Josephine Butler centred on the fact that the acts stigmatised the women while making no attempt to deal with the men who used them. But this did not prevent the acts from becoming law and extending the participation of medical practitioners in aspects of social policy.

Poverty and the Poor Law Doctors also played a large and increasing part in the conduct of the Poor Law, which changed radically during this period. Like factory and mines regulation, the pattern for the Poor Law had been set by the Whig reforms of the 1830s. As far as the Poor Law was concerned, however, there was sufficient public disquiet to necessitate further action. In 1847, the Poor Law Commission, which had supervised the unions of parishes which ran the workhouses, was replaced by the Poor Law Board, whose president was usually a member of the cabinet. Thus the Poor Law became a department of the government, similar to the Board of Trade. The Poor Law Board was then subordinated to the Local Government Board. Two forces for change were apparent in the administration of the Poor Law. The first was the recurrent anxiety about the burden on the ratepayers, and the second was a growing awareness that poverty was not always a matter of individual failure. The resistance to the provision of outrelief weakened, particularly for those designated the ‘respectable aged poor’, for those who were ill and for children, who were increasingly put into foster care. The provision, in the early twentieth century, of an old age pension and of national insurance against unemployment in some seasonal

114 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

trades, further reduced the need for ‘indoor relief’, and the stigma of pauperism. The pattern was changing even before these essential reforms: in 1850, 5.7 per cent of the population had been designated as paupers, but by 1900, despite a rapidly rising population, the percentage had fallen to 2.5 per cent. This gradual decline meant that the Poor Law unions could become the mechanism for additional duties: supervising smallpox vaccination and registering births, marriages and deaths being two examples. The gathering of more accurate statistical information fed back into a recognition of the need for further reforms and supported the campaigns of other agencies. One example of this is the research into maternal deaths in childbirth and neo-natal infants’ deaths undertaken by the Women’s Co-operative Guild. In its campaign for maternity benefits, the Guild collected testimony from 348 women. Margaret Llewelyn Davies, general secretary of the Guild, collected and published the letters in 1915, writing in her summary introduction: The number of families to which the following figures refer is therefore 348; Total number of live births, 1,396 Number of miscarriages, 218 (15.6 per 100 live births) Number of still-births, 83 (5.9 per 100 live births) . . . Of the 348 mothers, 148 (42.4 per cent) had still-births or miscarriages. Twenty-two had both still-births and miscarriages . . . Total number of deaths under 1 year, 122 (8.7 per 100 live births). Of the 122 deaths, 26 took place in the first week of life, 12 between the first week and the first month, and 23 later, owing to ante-natal causes or injury at birth . . . Of the 348 mothers, 86 (24.7 per cent) lost children in the first year of life.2

The outcome of the Guild’s campaign was, eventually, the payment of a small maternity grant, which enabled women to rest a little and to afford some necessities in the period surrounding the birth of a child. But the use of statistics to make an argument was a method which would become increasingly common as the ‘welfare state’ of the twentieth century developed.

Education Education developed in this period into a major government concern and a perceived mechanism for social change and improvement. From small grants to support charitable societies, the government’s involvement grew to providing first compulsory and then free elementary education, to providing assistance for technical training establishments and finally to making the first tentative steps towards secondary education for all. As early as 1846, ambitious plans had been formulated for national teacher training, although these plans were never implemented. Instead, a series of acts obliged local authorities first to ensure that there were adequate places for all children of school age and to remedy any shortfall (1870); then to offer free places to the needy and progressively to make education compulsory (1880 and 1891) up to the age of ten years or the end of ‘Standard VI’. The use of the term ‘Standard’ to mean class derived from the system for paying grant-in-use for 30 years from 1862, the so-called ‘Revised Code’ of ‘Payment by Results’. Its instigator, Lowe, had promised that if education were not efficient, the system would be cheap; only if the system was working, with children attending regularly and achieving measurable results, would the system be expensive. And expensive it certainly became. By 1900, the central government grant for elementary education was the largest single item of government expenditure aside

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 115

from defence: standing at £750,000 in 1870, the cost had risen to £7 million by the start of the new century. The inspection system also changed, becoming less formulaic while still thorough; from 244 inspectors of schools in 1880 the number had risen to 368 by the mid-1890s. During the early years of the twentieth century, schools became the instrument for further developments in social policy, providing free nutritious meals for poor children (funded by the Poor Law system) and beginning medical inspections, following the poor health revealed by the inspection of volunteer recruits during the Boer War. The impact of universal elementary education is difficult to measure precisely. Literacy certainly improved: in 1837, using the imprecise but available measure of people who were able to sign the marriage register instead of merely making a mark in front of witnesses, the figure appears to have been 69 per cent of bridegrooms and 55 per cent of brides. By 1900, the figure was approximately 97 per cent, with no gender difference. Other effects may be seen in the development of the postal system, and in the readership of newspapers, though other mechanisms, not least that of pricing, were also involved. The cost of mailing letters was greatly reduced by the Penny Post of 1841. Starting with a Treasury subsidy, it soon turned to profit. By 1900, the post office was dealing with 2,000 million letters annually, including the new invention of the picture postcard, first produced in 1894. Price had also prevented the poor from reading newspapers. The reactionary law which kept newspapers expensive was the 1819 Blasphemous and Seditious Libels act, which was eventually repealed in the Parliamentary session of 1869–70. The act referred to ‘pamphlets and printed papers containing observations upon public events and occurrences, tending to excite hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of these realms as by law established, and also vilifying our holy religion’3 and clearly had worked as a brake on many sensational and interesting stories. The repeal of the act, together with the growing numbers of people who could read with facility, led to a burgeoning ‘popular’ press, which in turn influenced both public opinion and the respect with which it was regarded.

Workplace reforms The conditions in which people worked in factories also became the subject of government action during this period. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the need to protect young children working in textile workshops had been recognised, although attempts to provide educational classes in factories had failed. The protection of children, and indeed of women, was accepted as a proper responsibility of government; protecting adult men was not. During the second half of the nineteenth century, however, and in part to ensure a more careful control of the hours of the young and female workforce, this began to change. Legislation tended to be cumulative, each act building on earlier laws to extend their range and effectiveness. The Factory Acts of 1833 and 1844 were followed by a series of further regulations, controlling hours and providing for inspection. Similarly, the 1842 Mines Act, which had limited the work of women and children, was reinforced by the 1872 Mines Act, which finally put inspection mechanisms in place; in turn this act was reinforced and improved by further acts in 1881, 1887 and 1900. While some areas of work, most notably domestic service, remained unregulated, governments had by the outbreak of the First World War recognised their responsibility to safeguard conditions of those at work.

116 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

The impact of the trade unions The development of trade unions is referred to in several chapters of this book because of their significant impact on British politics in the period. Their initial and overriding purpose, however, was always the wellbeing and economic status of their members, and for that reason they are an important part of the history of social and public health reforms in Britain. Governments found themselves pushed towards action by organised workers expressing their needs and demands After the setback of the Tolpuddle martyrs, transported in the 1830s for swearing a secret oath as members of a trade union, for half a century there was little progress in the field of workers’ co-operation. Skilled workers banded together to safeguard their pay and conditions, using their irreplaceable skills as a bargaining tool. But not until the boom years of the 1880s did unskilled workers make progress in unionisation. During the 1880s, however, the picture changed, and the ‘mass unions’ showed what could be done by harnessing public opinion and making headlines in the nascent popular press, and by inhibiting the use of blackleg labour. The match-girls who worked at Bryant and May were able to establish, without recourse to legislation, that life-threatening working practices were unacceptable; and the London Gas workers showed that dangerous work should not be done by men exhausted by long shifts and insufficient nutrition. On the whole, however, the greatest influence of the trade unions was through their political activity, which will be discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.

Contemporary arguments for and against social reform The protection of working children and the education of all children had by the middle of the nineteenth century been accepted by most as a reasonable responsibility of government. It was thought that the product would be a healthy and literate adult population which would be able to compete against the growing threat of American and German industrial strength. It was increasingly accepted that a nation should be judged on how it treats its least fortunate and how it protects its most vulnerable. Similarly, as the study of economics became more systematic, poverty was recognised as not being always the fault of the poor. The increasing availability of foster care for pauper children and even the creation of false birth addresses to ensure that they did not grow up under the stigma of pauperism are evidence of this. At the same time, the respectable aged poor and those in hospital were not treated with the full rigour of the ‘less eligibility’ rules. By the outbreak of the First World War, the need for society to provide for its own vulnerable members was accepted across virtually the whole political spectrum. Thus the patronising approach of charitable giving and conditional philanthropy began to be replaced by a recognition of societal duty. The almost accidental enfranchisement of working men in 1867 strengthened the argument in favour of educating them and enhancing their conditions of life. There continued, however, to be serious doubts about protecting adult men, or about expending the money of the frugal to enhance the living and working conditions of all. If men could vote, then surely they could choose whether or not to accept the conditions in a place of work, or in a town. It was, for many, an infringement of liberty to tell people how to dispose of their household waste, or how to bring up their own children. It was a risky business to give women rights over their own property, rather than leaving it in the wiser hands of their fathers and husbands.

ESSAYS • 117

And above all, it was against all the ‘laws’ of laissez faire economics to put increased cost burdens onto employers by controlling the conditions of their workers. The argument that it was the parents’ business to accept or refuse working conditions for their own children – after all, no one was compelling children to work – continued to be heard up to and beyond the passing of the Climbing Boys act in 1875. The same argument was used with much more force over the working conditions of adult men, and prophecies of the ruin of British industry continued to be heard well into the twentieth century. The most convincing argument continued to be over the proper allocation of money: should taxes and rates be collected and spent as the authorities believed would be best, or should the money be left in people’s pockets for them to spend as they chose? The phrase ‘nanny state’ had not yet been coined, but had it existed there were many, usually on the right wing of politics, who would have used it. The essays which follow consider in more detail some of the areas of social reform during this period.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts; of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. Public health and government policy a) b)

How unhealthy were British towns during this period? Consider the view that governments did too little to improve public health.

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) At the start of this period, towns in Britain were extremely insalubrious, and even by the beginning of the twentieth century, many houses had no running water. As recently as 1970, one family in six did not have its own bathroom.4 Nineteenth-century privies (lavatories) were often communal; night soil removers emptied the solid matter and dumped it on fields around the towns, from where it leached into the rivers and wells which townspeople used as their water supply. As we have seen in Chapter 3, when Edwin Chadwick was researching his report in Leeds, one yard was found with 340 inhabitants and only three privies; the nearest water supply was more than 400 metres away. Rich people might have indoor lavatories and even water flushing, but the cesspits were just under the houses, poisoning the atmosphere and contaminating the springs which served the street wells and pumps as well as the private water supplies. As the century progressed, fresh ‘running water’ was available from companies which piped supplies into the homes of those who could afford it; often the supply was available for only a few hours a day. The poor could not afford such luxury and would collect their water from the river. In the Manchester area, the poor collected their water from the Irwell as it flowed between a tannery and a graveyard. The housing stock was inadequate and unhealthy. As the urban population had grown, factory owners had constructed cheap accommodation for the workers they needed. Many of these were

118 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919 Figure 4.1 ‘Father Thames introducing his offspring to the fair city of London’ (A design for a fresco in the new Houses of Parliament), Punch, 1858

DlPII:rUERl.-\..

FATHER

THA~IES

>.'>C.ROFL"L-I..

CrrOLEM..

INTRODUCIXG IIIS OFFSPRING TO THE FAIR CITY OF

LONDO~.

(A Design for a Fresco in the New Houses of Parliament.)

built ‘back to back’ so that there was no chance of a through passage of air. The houses were small, with families crowded into cramped and unventilated rooms. Cellar dwellings were common, with only a trap door for access of both people and air. Outside, the streets were filthy; medieval regulations about disposal of food waste by butchers, greengrocers and fishmongers could not be enforced in the crowded circumstances of the towns. And while horse-drawn transport may have a romantic resonance to the modern person, each horse emptied its bowels on average thirteen times a day. In the residential areas of the rich, crossing sweepers, as epitomised by Jo in Dickens’ Bleak House, earned small sums by sweeping a clear passage for the trailing dresses of ladies. The poor could obviously not afford such luxuries. Industries were virtually unregulated. It was part of the overriding economic doctrine of the early nineteenth century that regulation would harm industry and that freedom to produce was the key to Britain’s world industrial dominance. Industrial waste poured into rivers and streams and polluted the area around every town (the Leblanc alkali process, described in Chapter 3, was only the most serious of many polluting industrial activities). The stench of the River Thames made it impossible for MPs to walk on the terraces of the newly constructed Houses of Parliament. The unhealthy nature of many towns was recognised by the wealthy, many of them the instigators of

ESSAYS • 119

the pollution, they built their new homes in suburbs to the windward sides of their cities, so that they escaped the blowing pollution; or they moved into the countryside, a train ride away from their works. b) During the 1830s and 1840s, governments had become aware of serious problems in the towns, partly, but not entirely, because of the terrible epidemics of cholera, which killed about 130,000 people in 1848–9. There were statistics about death because districts kept Bills of Mortality listing ages and causes of death, which demonstrated how dangerous towns were. The Conservative government of Robert Peel had commissioned Edwin Chadwick to report on public health, and he demonstrated the unhealthy nature of the towns, by showing that the average age of death in towns, in this case Manchester, in every social class, was much lower than in the countryside, as exemplified by the rural county of Rutland: Average age of death

Professional families and the gentry Tradesmen and farmers and their families Labourers, mechanics and their families

Manchester 38 20 17

Rutland 52 41 38

It was clearly in the interests of governments to improve public health, but there were serious obstacles in their way. They had very little authority to tell local governments what to do, and in their turn, local governments were neither professional nor particularly interested in the general good. Municipal corporations existed, but their right to levy rates was limited. They did not want to alienate the people who voted for them by squandering their money on unpleasant aspects of town life which were better ignored or at least not discussed in public. Nor did they want to upset retailers by needless regulation about rubbish disposal. Often the members of the corporations appointed one another and their friends to positions such as inspector of nuisances, or commissioner of sewers. In many towns there were multiple commissions and boards, with no obvious delineation of actual responsibility. The Government’s action in commissioning Edwin Chadwick to produce his Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population in 1842 was an important – and modern – first step. Rather than guesswork and prejudice, hard fact would be the basis of government action, and Chadwick’s report was full of facts, tables, statistics and maps. His calculations indicated that providing safe and clean homes and drainage for every family could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost of supporting families deprived of a breadwinner by disease. Many MPs, however, were reluctant to accept that local conditions should be a matter for national legislation, and this group (nicknamed the ‘dirty party’) prevented the passing of a Public Health Bill in 1847, although the Nuisances Removal Act was passed, together with various acts which codified and rearranged existing legislation. An unexciting but useful example is the 1847 Act for Consolidating in One Act Certain Provisions Usually Contained in Acts for Paving, Draining, Cleansing, Lighting and Improving Towns. Similar laws dealt with markets and fairs, town cemeteries, police and public utilities like gas and water, then often owned and controlled by town governments. The Gasworks Clauses Act of 1847 was followed by the Waterworks Clauses Act of the same year. The Town Police Clauses Act dealt with a mass of small matters, including the stretching of clothes lines

120 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

across streets and ‘furious driving or riding’ on the public highway, although it was not until after 1850 that every part of Britain had a police force. All these acts may have improved life in the towns, but did not tackle the central issue of dirt and disease. In 1848, however, the ‘dirty party’ was defeated and Chadwick’s act was passed, establishing a Public Health Board for England and Wales with direct jurisdiction over London and permitting the ratepayers of the corporation to establish a local board in any town. The government also had the authority to compel the establishment of such a board in any town where the death rate exceeded 23 in 1,000. The Board of Health was not popular, however, especially since the further outbreak of cholera in 1848–9 gave local councils more things to worry about other than embarking on expensive improvements. The board was abolished in 1854. Thus the first attempt by central government to improve public health had failed. But no one could ignore Chadwick’s research, which remained influential even after he had been retired. In 1875, two useful acts were passed. The Public Health Act (mocked by the Liberals as part of a ‘policy of sewage’) codified various existing regulations and ordered the appointment of medical officers of health in each area to supervise and report on public health issues. The act also banned cellar dwellings and allowed local authorities who wanted to do more to make by-laws and raise rates for the purpose. The Artisans’ Dwellings Act authorised local authorities to spend the ratepayers’ money on slum clearance, although few towns took up the challenge. The problem for the central government was that it could not order local councils to take action unless it was also prepared to offer grants-in-aid, and that would have led to additional taxation. When, in the following year, the Rivers Pollution Act ordered that sewage and industrial waste be made safe before being discharged into rivers, there was an outcry about industry being stifled by regulation. The medical officers of health were required to supervise the pollution legislation, as well as the growing regulation about food standards. The Adulteration of Food, Drink and Drugs Act of 1872 was followed by a Sale of Food and Drugs Act in 1876 and another in 1899, all of which attempted to prevent the sale of adulterated materials. These acts, together with the Enclosures Act of 1876, which protected common land from the relentless encroachment of housing and factories for the healthful pleasure of ordinary people, demonstrate a serious and continuing government commitment to improving public health. The fact that these acts were introduced by the Conservatives, traditionally the party of non-interference, as often as by the Liberals, demonstrates changing public attitudes to the issue. The modest momentum established by Disraeli was maintained by successive ministries, and the reforms of local government in the 1880s were to ensure a more efficient inspection and regulation procedure in towns. Legislation to tackle poverty in general also ensured that there were fewer families willing or forced to live in inadequate housing, which at the same time improved technologies (for example glazed drainage pipes to replace wooden sewage systems) ensured better health for townspeople. Right into the twenty-first century, however, there were to be difficulties with the discharge of raw sewage into the sea and with the dumping of industrial and other waste. Governments in the second half of the nineteenth century were only slowly coming to the view that public problems must have public solutions. In a period when the payment of taxation was limited to a small percentage of the wealthy citizens, expenditure on the conditions of the poor was unlikely to be a priority. Gradually, however, a combination of changes in the franchise and scientific awareness of the causes and cost of disease ensured that Parliament began to play a greater part in all aspects of public health.

ESSAYS • 121

a) b)

What arguments were put forward in favour of improving living conditions in the towns of Britain? Why did local governments do so little to improve their urban environments?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Clear necessity of improving living conditions, made obvious by rapid population growth and movement into the towns. Para 2: Health was obviously important, as it became clear that it could cost more to deal with the great epidemics than to prevent them and as scientific evidence mounted to demonstrate the link between filth and disease (examples of cholera and typhoid). Para 3: Civic pride plus competition with other towns, together with the example of cities like Paris and Berlin, using civic building programmes as part of plans to maintain civil order (examples of town halls and municipal spending). b) Para 4: Perhaps an exaggeration to say ‘so little’ since some local councils did a great deal (Birmingham housing, Bradford town hall, Glasgow street lighting etc.). Para 5: Comparatively little was done because towns continued to grow (statistics on urbanisation) in a haphazard way, making it difficult to plan and produce improvements. Para 6: Reluctance of ratepayers to support such schemes, particularly as ease of transport made a move into the suburbs more attractive. Para 7: Lack of proper accountability to ordinary people until local franchises and rate records were reorganised and updated. Para 8: Inadequacy of government leadership and low level of grants-in-aid. Many acts of parliament were permissive (examples) rather than compelling; and there were so many initiatives that it was possible for municipal councils to plead their overstretched finances in order to do very little. Conclusion: As changes in drainage and the steady general improvement in health reduced the frequency of major epidemics, there was less need for individual councils to act, although some did.

2. Cholera and the work of Dr John Snow a) b)

Why was cholera so deadly in the nineteenth century? To what extent does Dr John Snow deserve the credit for its eradication?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Cholera is a disease communicated through contaminated water. Its first arrival in Britain in the 1830s had been anxiously awaited, as its course was tracked from Asia. But, in the days before any understanding of bacteriology, the method by which it spread was a mystery. It is not surprising that people failed to link it directly with the filth in the towns: towns were always dirty, but diseases came and went. (The same was true in earlier centuries of bubonic plague: when flea bites were

122 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

a normal part of everyday life, no one imagined that fleas spread the occasional outbreaks of plague.) Edwin Chadwick’s famous remark, ‘all smell is disease’ may appear to be on the right lines, but it was too general to be meaningful and was regarded as an attempt to force ratepayers into unnecessary expenditure. Cholera spread where effluent from infected people found its way into the drinking water of others. Thus the lack of efficient sewage disposal, together with the absence of any clean and secure drinking water supply, ensured that it would spread rapidly. With so few sources of water available to the poor, one pump or well might serve literally thousands of people. Indeed, the rich might also be affected: one of Dr Snow’s proofs was, famously, the lady who had moved to leafy Hampstead, but who so enjoyed the taste of the water from the Soho pump where she had previously lived that she had a large bottle brought every day to her new home. She was the only person who died of cholera in her area during the 1854 outbreak. Clearly, cholera spread easily in a period of contaminated water supplies and because of the overcrowding which meant that every contaminated supply might be used by so many. But the disease need not be deadly. It took many lives because doctors did not know what to do: indeed, if they had known, the business of rehydrating patients continuously to replace the fluid lost in vomiting and watery diarrhoea would have done little good given the state of the water they would have used. What doctors did at the time can only have made matters worse. The cholera hospitals, with no ideas of cleanliness or segregation of the sick from the well, were seen as graveyards: in Glasgow, 70 per cent of patients admitted to hospital with the disease, died. Some doctors tried radical treatments, of which doses of arsenic ‘to kill the infection’, or leeches ‘to remove the poisonous blood’, were only the most extreme. Fear of doctors and hospitals was only exceeded by fear of the disease itself, with infected people trying to leave the area of the illness and taking it with them to new sewage and water systems. b) Dr John Snow certainly deserves the credit for discovering the means of transmission of cholera. Before the publication of his book, On the Mode of Communication of Cholera, in 1849 there were many theories about the disease, but none had any validity. Leaving aside those who believed it was a sign of the wrath of God, curable and preventable by prayer and good behaviour, there were two main views. The miasmatists, of whom Chadwick was one, declared that the disease was spread by a foul miasma, or imperceptible poison in the air. They demonstrated this by pointing to the fact that the worst outbreaks were in areas where the air was bad and that people might be affected who had never even met one another. They used this argument against those who believed, perhaps with more validity, that it was spread by contagion, by physical contact, as were so many other diseases (measles and chicken pox, for example). Contagionists pointed to the concentration of almost all outbreaks into groups whose links with one another could be demonstrated. It was the exceptions to both these ‘rules’ that convinced John Snow that the answer must lie elsewhere. He already believed that the water supply was the medium of communication, and the 1854 epidemic gave him a chance to see the disease at work among the poor in his own Soho practice in the middle of London. Noticing that the men who worked at the local brewery, with its free allocation of beer as part of the wages, did not become infected even when their families

ESSAYS • 123

did, and given the story of the lady from Hampstead, he persuaded the authorities to remove the handle from the pump in Broad Street. The indignation of the local people, forced to go several hundred metres further to another pump to collect their household water, was matched by the decline in the disease in his area. He then made house-to-house enquiries in other affected areas where households had piped water and traced outbreaks to two of the water companies who drew their water from the more contaminated parts of the Thames. While it took another decade and a further outbreak of cholera to convince the authorities that polluted water was to blame, by the mid-1860s all accepted Snow’s work. By this time, Snow himself was dead, aged only 44, and after spending time on pain relief and the use of chloroform in childbirth. Knowing the cause did not, however, bring about the eradication of the disease, and thus Snow cannot claim the full credit for the fact that cholera ceased to be a problem in Britain – although there were small outbreaks up to the 1890s. The disease ceased to be a deadly threat because of improved conditions in towns and because, as a part of those improvements, the water and sewage systems were modernised. Edwin Chadwick had included, in his famous 1842 report, drawings and specifications for glazed earthenware drainpipes, which would be impermeable and could be joined together by connections which did not leak. As town after town replaced their medieval brick or wooden conduits with piping which took the sewage to where it should go, the incidence of disease of all types declined. Improved water supplies were also a matter of civic pride in many towns, some of which had continued to use Roman or medieval monastic aqueducts and pipes. The use of lead for the piping in many houses was not then known to be dangerous to health, and the provision of taps or pumps actually within houses or yards was bound to encourage increased cleanliness. Thus one of the key reasons for the end of cholera was the legislation which allowed and encouraged town councils to improve the environments of their residents. At the same time, increased education and awareness played a part. A more literate population could be advised and instructed how to protect themselves and could be steered towards greater personal cleanliness. The new, cheap newspapers which followed the repeal of the Blasphemy Act in 1869–70 were also useful in educating the mass of the population. Meanwhile, the improvements in transport which marked the middle years of the nineteenth century enhanced the food supplies coming into towns, with good effects for the general health of the population. People who were better fed were less susceptible to acute disease. The more effective and tolerant treatment of those who could not support themselves also enhanced the overall national health. On the other hand, the end of cholera did not mean the end of all diseases of polluted water. After all, Prince Albert’s death in 1861 was caused by typhoid spread by the plumbing system of Windsor Castle. There is no doubt that Britain in 1900 was healthier than it had been a hundred years before. While doctors and researchers like Snow and Chadwick had a part to play, the main reason was that towns were becoming cleaner and the standards of life and environment expected by the poor, and on their behalf by the men who represented them in the reformed House of Commons, rose. Towns continued to be problematic in terms of health, though the air pollution which attracts attention in the twenty-first century is described in terms of dangerous particulates rather than poisonous miasma.

124 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

a) b)

How did John Snow demonstrate the causes of cholera? (15 marks) What measures were undertaken by governments in this period to reduce the risk of infectious epidemics? (15 marks)

Focus closely on the actual causes of cholera in contrast to what was generally believed, then it will be easy to show how Snow’s work in the Soho area of London really did constitute a scientific proof. This will enable you to move on to part (b). The growing provision of clean water and the safe disposal of sewage can be shown to assist in the defeat of cholera, but you also need to demonstrate your understanding of the balance between local and central government initiatives and funding.

3. The Poor Law ‘The functions of the Poor Law changed completely.’ For what reasons did local authorities change their attitudes to and treatment of the poor?

(90 marks)

During the 80 years which followed the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, the organisation and function of the Poor Law changed radically. It is not, however, true to say that there was a complete change in the functions of the Poor Law Board. The purpose of the 1834 Act had been to ensure that the rates were not used to subsidise the feckless and the wilfully idle. Thus the ‘workhouse test’ was applied to ensure that the claimants were really desperate by offering them something ‘less eligible’ than their alternative life of self-sufficiency. The attempt to put an end to ‘outdoor’ relief, that is help to people without forcing them to enter the workhouse, was never completely successful, but the proportion of assistance given as out-relief remained comparatively low for some years. The establishment of the Poor Law Board in 1847 moved overall control from the Unions of Parishes to the central government, but the main source of revenue remained the local ratepayers. As the proportion of grant-in-aid increased, the influence of government policies became greater. From 1871 onwards, the Local Government Board assumed responsibility for the administration of the Poor Law. One reason why payment of out-relief was never fully ended was that it was less expensive than supplying permanent workhouse places to people who might weather a short-term problem and resume supporting themselves and their families. The Poor Law Board intervened in this vexed question in 1895, with a recommendation that outdoor relief should be of an adequate amount. The following year, the Board strengthened this recommendation into an order that the respectable aged poor must be relieved adequately without going into the workhouse. One of the central tenets of the 1834 Act had been sidestepped, at least for the aged. The provision of the non-contributory old age pension in 1908 further reduced the responsibility of the Poor Law Boards for the old, since they would be more likely to be able to sustain themselves in old age. Another group gradually recognised as innocent in their own misfortunes was that of the pauper children. In an era where pregnancy outside marriage was stigmatised, girls who became pregnant, for example in domestic service, had little choice but to go to the workhouse and then, probably,

ESSAYS • 125

to leave the child there while attempting to return to a ‘respectable’ life. In 1872 an attempt was made to ease the burden of these young women, and at the same time to reduce the burden on the ratepayers, when the Bastardy Law Amendment act authorised the Justice of the Peace to compel fathers to support their illegitimate children – if, of course, the fathers could be found in the absence of blood tests and DNA profiling! From the 1890s, many areas took to placing their pauper children with foster families, of a very different kind from the ‘baby farmers’ pilloried by Dickens and later by W.S. Gilbert.5 The purpose was to give these children a taste of family life and it was in pursuit of this aim that some were supplied with fictitious places of birth to protect them from the stigma of having been born in the workhouse. During the Liberal ministry of the early twentieth century, the Poor Law authorities were given the responsibility of supplying meals for needy children within the school system, in an effort to improve the general health of the population. In another change of function and responsibility, the Poor Law Board rapidly became the main provider of hospital beds for the poor. This had already begun during the cholera epidemics when, in many towns, the poor house was the only place with beds for those who could not care for themselves. As the ability of medicine to make a difference grew, the number of hospital beds needed increased. By the end of the 1880s, the number of Poor Law beds countrywide was over 20,000. In the two decades from 1891 to 1911, the number of beds trebled to 66,000. At the same time, the distinction between hospital and workhouse was recognised; from1885 onwards, the electoral disqualification which was applied to those receiving poor relief was deemed not to apply to registered voters in receipt of medical treatment in hospital. The ‘undeserving’ poor were deemed to be those who could work for their living but did not. It was against them that the threat of ‘less eligibility’ had been particularly aimed, and they continued to be treated with disdain. In 1911, however, the provision of contributory health and unemployment insurance ensured that those who fell on hard times, whether through illness, injury or because their work was seasonal, were not forced into the workhouse. Thus, by the outbreak of the First World War, the workhouses themselves had become much less important in solving the problems of poverty, and the Poor Law authorities were recognisably metamorphosing into a general social welfare agency. It is not entirely true that it was the local Poor Law authorities whose attitude changed. Rather, it was the attitudes of central government and, to an extent, of the general public, which changed and brought about the alterations in the way the poor rate and the grants-in-aid were spent. The fact that local government took over direct responsibility for the administration of the Poor Law made it easier for poverty to be viewed in a more general context than before and for a greater flexibility of response to be achieved. A greater awareness of national and international trends was apparent in public responses to poverty. It was increasingly clear, as the century progressed, that a man could be too poor to support his family through no fault of his own. The fluctuations of trade and the growth of international competition were recognised as causing local difficulties, which had to be dealt with by society as a whole. Newspapers drove these points home and demonstrated, to the satisfaction of their readership at any rate, the uncontrollable force of international economics. Their readership was a workforce with slightly more time to think about public affairs, as their working hours were slowly reduced, and an increasing level of literacy. The impact of Charles Dickens’ attack on the worst excesses of the Poor Law also clearly had a slow

126 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

but inexorable impact on how the poor houses were perceived by the general public. The influence of philanthropists was also significant, as the public had seen how such people could affect the lives of the poor. And most of the philanthropists believed that the draconian methods of the Poor Law were doing more harm than good. The enfranchisement of ordinary working men in the towns also affected the way local governments operated. Although acceptance of poor relief disenfranchised the recipient, the voters were now just the sort of people who lived with the awareness that an accident at work, or a family tragedy, could drive their families into the clutches of ‘the parish’. As central governments, encouraged by their new voters, introduced regulations which reduced the risk of the workhouse, so those who were still forced to apply to the system for assistance were less stigmatised. And as central government supplied funds through grants-in-aid, the resentment of the ratepayers at having to support the poor was much reduced. Increased regulation in all aspects of life was one of the features of this period, from factories to schools and from railways to shipping. Local governments had so many aspects of life to supervise and to regulate that there was less self-righteous concern about the abuse of the rates by paupers. It is also not surprising that attitudes to the administration of the Poor Law should change and that the public should accept the kinds of intervention which reduced the pain attached to applying for help: the provision of old age pensions and the need to register and make payments for national insurance cover were more acceptable to the citizens of the early twentieth century than would have been the case in earlier years. The shock with which the findings of the military medical inspections of 1899 were greeted and the failure of many Boer War volunteers to reach the basic fitness standards required for service were also significant in changing public and official perceptions of poverty and how it should be dealt with. The thought that, less than a century after the defeat of Napoleon, the young men of Britain were not fit to fight was an alarming one, and action such as Poor Law-provided meals in schools was one of several outcomes.

Figure 4.2 ‘The Right Ticket for You!’, a poster issued by the Liberal Party in 1911, advocating their new Health Insurance Scheme

ESSAYS • 127

The change of attitude in the local authorities was merely a reflection of the change of attitude in the population as a whole and of the growing awareness of economic and social problems. But the administration of the Poor Law was by no means ideal, and even after the establishment of alternative systems in the period after the First World War, which effectively ended the threat, fear of the Workhouse overshadowed the last years of whole generations of elderly people.

a) b)

What changes were made in the administration of the Poor Law in this period? (30 marks) To what extent were the mechanisms of the Poor Law used for other policies unrelated to poverty? (60 marks)

Both parts of this particular question are fact based and give you an opportunity to show your understanding of developments across the whole period. For part (a), note the administrative changes, from parish to union to Local Government Board, and the changes in emphasis of the period, including the reduction in the number of elderly paupers eventually achieved by the 1908 Old Age Pensions Act. In part (b), you need to have examples from different aspects of the work of the Poor Law Board: developments in medicine and hospitals; assistance to poor parents in terms of the nutrition and health of their children; research into demographic patterns.

4. Education a) b)

Why was there concern to improve public education between 1860 and 1902? How successful were government policies in extending education to all?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) There were two overriding reasons for government determination to improve public education in this period. The effortless domination of British industries in world markets was being assailed, not least by Prussia, where public education already existed. A growing number of authorities believed that an educated workforce would be a more efficient and productive workforce. It was felt that, with the increasing complexity of the machine age, all workers needed to be able to read instructions and to grasp simple arithmetical concepts. A second reason was the enfranchisement of the working classes. It was clear from the beginning of the 1860s that some kind of extension of the franchise was inevitable. Long debates had included various references to the need for a literate electorate: they should be educated before they were given the vote. When the suggestion of a reading test for voters was rejected, along with the other ‘fancy franchises’, the problem was seen from the opposite angle: because they had the vote, ordinary people must be educated. A subsidiary feeling in some groups in society was that workers were becoming overambitious and were trying to move outside their proper station in life. An aspect of education which found favour with this type of person was that education would ensure that people ‘knew their place’.

128 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

The fact that some education for the poor already existed was another cause of an improvement drive. In the atmosphere of the later nineteenth century, governments were increasingly becoming involved in all aspects of life: regulating, inspecting, legislating and financing a wide range of services which had, only a few decades earlier, been seen as private, rather than public matters. From the 1830s, modest government grants had gone to subsidise the societies offering education to the poor. Both the National Schools and the British schools operated the monitorial system, with pupil teachers, under the supervision of the masters and mistresses, teaching those whose parents were prepared to send them to school. As the amount of government grant increased, the need to supervise the standards in schools became paramount. The method found to achieve this supervision was Robert Lowe’s ‘Revised Code’, which provided for payment by results. As he told Parliament, the system would be either cheap, or efficient, with the grant dependent on regular attendance and the achievement of ‘standards’ in reading, writing and arithmetic. The first findings of the inspectors were enough to convince the politicians that more needed to be done. By the time that ‘payment by results’ was replaced in 1897, it had become axiomatic that education was a government responsibility. A further, and very British, argument was that there was no need to embark on a whole new system, since it could merely be a matter of ‘filling the gaps’ in the existing miscellaneous provision. The 1870 Education Act was the first exercise in this gap filling policy. Its effect was to established over 3,000 local education authorities, the school boards, which remained in existence until the 1902 Education Act made county councils responsible for education. The education system was by no means cheap, as ratepayers across the county found to their cost. In Watford, Hertfordshire, for example, an appeal was made after the 1870 Act for local citizens to contribute to the local endowed schools, so that they could provide more places and avoid the need for the town to establish a school board. The appeal fell on deaf ears and, as had been predicted, rates soared, as did the contribution made by government to the business of education. Once elementary education had been universally provided, secondary education was bound to follow. It soon became clear that there were clever children who could never afford the expense of education in existing institutions, and thus further action followed as a matter of course. What had begun as a cause for public concern acquired its own momentum, as one educational reform demonstrated gaps and problems which needed to be dealt with by further legislation.

b) The patchwork of provision which had existed before the 1870 Act was rationalised and extended in the next few decades, but the education system was still not available to all by the time of the First World War. As far as elementary education was concerned, a series of acts ensured that almost all children were educated for a brief part of their childhood. The main aim of the Forster Act was the provision of a school place for every child of school age in an area. This included places at schools too expensive for the ordinary citizens to afford, and it was enough for such places to exist, even if no one took them. The insistence, in the Cowper-Temple clause of the act, that there should be religious education of a non-denominational Christian nature was enough to alienate staunch members of the Church of England, although, at the other extreme, only a few socialists took advantage of the clause which allowed them to withdraw their children from religious instruction.

ESSAYS • 129

Ensuring that children took advantage of the school places made available under the 1870 Act was achieved in three further acts, demonstrating the same cumulative development of legislation which occurred in most social fields. In 1876, local schools attendance committees were empowered to enforce attendance, if they chose to, and to provide free places for those that could not afford it; in 1880 this permissive act became a directive and school attendance up to the age of ten or to the attainment of ‘Standard VI’ was made compulsory. The third act inevitably followed, in 1891, to make education ‘free’ or paid for publicly, for all children, since the collecting of school pence from already recalcitrant parents proved impossible. In the single year of 1892, for example, there were more than 85,000 prosecutions for failure to send children to school. Parents claimed that they would be ruined if their children had to attend school rather than assisting them on farm or in workshop, or earning enough to feed themselves. Gradually, however, it became clear that there was no choice, and there was little protest when the upper age limit for elementary school was raised to 11 in 1893 and 12 in 1899. The education acts were more efficient than many employment acts in preventing child labour. School inspectors provided a wealth of information to government departments, which helped to formulate policy. From 1899 onwards, for instance, local authorities were empowered to establish special schools for people with – in the modern phrase – learning difficulties. The extent to which elementary education was, in Forster’s phrase, useful, varied from school to school and from teacher to teacher. But it soon became clear that education which ceased at the age of 10 or 11 was inadequate both for many children and for the needs of the modern age. The Technical Instruction Act of 1889 gave school boards the authority to levy a rate for higher level education, both in technical subjects and in order to provide a further step for pupils who had shown promise at the board school. In some areas, classes beyond the maximum age achieved considerable success, but of course they were costly. In 1900, the law courts found in favour of the ratepayers in the Cockerton Judgement, which concluded that higher level classes, except for technical instruction, were unlawful since the 1870 Act had explicitly referred to elementary education. As in many other cases, litigation led to legislation, and in 1902 the Balfour Education Act attempted to undo the damage caused by the judgement. The Balfour Act made no claim to provide secondary education for all. Rather, according to the civil servant Sir R. Morant, whose work it largely was, it provided a ‘ladder of opportunity’ by making places available at existing secondary schools for pupils whose fees would be paid from public funds. Thus the Victorian method of progress and advancement through competitive examination was applied to the children of the poor, and funds were made available to denominational schools which had, in several cases, been struggling to survive. The indignation of the Non-Conformists at public money going to Anglican schools should not disguise the fact that these schools provided opportunities which would not otherwise have been available. Under the 1907 Education Act, schools in receipt of public money had to make at least 25 per cent of their places available to children from elementary schools. By the end of the Edwardian age, almost all children were receiving a basic education, and some were able to progress to a level which opened for them at least some of the professions. Government policy was not, however, the sole driving force for ‘education for all’. Trade unions, self-help groups, churches and charities all offered opportunities for adult intellectual development;

130 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

the investment of the profits from the Great Exhibition into the building of museums, and the burgeoning of libraries and literary institutes are indications that many groups in society were hungry for education, and that successive governments, in legislating for universal education, were in tune with the aspirations of the whole population.

a) b)

What educational reforms were introduced by governments in the second half of the nineteenth century? How far did these reforms fulfil their stated aims?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Part (a) simply requires a clear and concise account of the main educational reforms, although it is important to look beyond the acts concerning elementary education to technical institutes and the moves towards higher grade schools should also be mentioned. Part (b) requires you to measure what the reforms actually achieved as opposed to what was intended, and you should do this in a methodical way.

5. Workplace reforms a) b)

What was done by governments to make workplaces safer during this period? To what extent did workplace reforms mark a progressive change in government attitudes?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The safety issues which initially most concerned governments were hours of working and the age of workers, both of which could lead to danger for the workforce. Following early work on children in textile factories, a string of acts (in 1847, 1850, 1853, 1875, 1891, 1895 and 1901) gradually controlled the maximum hours for all workers. The target expressed in slogans and trade union demands was a ten-hour day for men. At first introduced in roundabout ways, by limiting the hours of the children, whose work was essential to the whole factory, the ten hours maximum was applied by the 1875 Act to all workers; of course they might choose to work more, but not for their basic pay. Later orders and the 1901 Act extended the existing legislation to a wide range of workshops and plants. The problem was that workshops, for instance in tailoring, might then contract more work to outworkers, or homeworkers, to maintain production, while not breaking the law. The hours worked by homeworkers were almost impossible to control, although the 1901 Act required local authorities to collect the names of outworkers from the factories which contracted work to them. The coal mines were another area of regulation in this period, with mines acts reaching the statute book with remarkable frequency. It is difficult for the modern student to imagine the almost total reliance on coal in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: not only were domestic and public heating and the creation of gas and, later, electricity dependent on coal, but also railways and ships, whether of the navy or the merchant fleet. So, too, were all factories which used steam and all heavy industries which used coke. Thus the number of mines and miners rose year by year,

ESSAYS • 131

until by 1913 over one million men were employed in coal mining. In the search for the coal, mines went deeper than ever before and seams of coal which were narrow or difficult to work were exploited. The work was both difficult and dangerous. As in other industries, the first government actions had been to restrict and then prevent the employment of women and boys by the Act of 1842. The string of acts which followed (1855, 1860, 1862, 1872, 1881, 1887, 1900, 1908 and 1912) are themselves a measure of both the importance of coal and the difficulty of regulating the industry, particularly in the face of hostile mine owners, many of whom were very influential. Coal mines tended to lie under the land of members of the House of Lords, whose self-interest encouraged them to emasculate legislation before accepting it, thus necessitating further regulation. The 1908 Act specifically prohibited any man from working underground for more than eight hours at a stretch, for reasons of safety, and the 1912 Act tried to enforce area wages to prevent men from needing to work longer hours. The work of merchant seamen was also extremely dangerous and made more so by the overloading of ships. Ship owners sought to maximise the return from each voyage and, while their cargoes were well insured, there was no such provision for their sailors. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1876 was the work of Samuel Plimsoll, himself a ship owner; but the effectiveness of the bill was destroyed during the debate by MPs with interests in shipping profits: the ‘load line’, known as the Plimsoll line, which was to be marked on every ship hull, was to be painted on by the company and thus could be painted so high as to be ineffective. Not until a further act in 1890 was the Board of Trade put in charge of inspecting the ships and ensuring that the line was painted so as to prevent dangerous cargoes. The importance of public sentiment can be seen in the legislation to regulate one more workplace. In 1863, Charles Kingsley published his children’s story The Water Babies. This tale of a young chimney sweep and his longing to be clean and to be educated struck a chord among those classes who needed to have the chimneys of their large homes swept by climbing boys, and happily coincided with the development of vacuum cleaning machines capable of removing soot. Even so, the first act to be passed, in 1864, was ineffective, as too often the master sweeps were able to persuade the magistrates that their boys liked the work and would starve without it. The Climbing Boys Act of 1875 put a stop to the trade by the simple means of removing the licence of any master sweep if a child was found on the premises when a chimney was being swept. Thus over the second half of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, governments stamped their authority over many workplaces and regulation became the norm rather than the exception. The reforms that were passed indicate a change in the attitudes of governments and Parliament to the whole question of responsibility for the wellbeing of working people.

b) Safety in the workplace was not, at the beginning of this period, perceived as the business of government, although it had always been possible for a worker who could afford it to go to the law over such issues. Gradually, however, regulation of working conditions was added to the growing list of matters in which governments concerned themselves. As with other reforms, the reasons for this increasing interest were mixed: the pressure of opinion from trade unions and the public, strengthened by reports in the press and, on occasion, by the work of novelists, was one encouragement, and the influence of philanthropic members of Parliament another; but

132 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

probably more influential was the growing weight of existing legislation, which meant that it was a matter of extending the law rather than beginning new reforms. It was, of course, only the larger industries and the larger factories and workshops which attracted government attention, although gradually the scope of factory acts expanded to include more types of commodity and workshops with smaller numbers of people. In textiles, for instance, bleaching and dyeing were added to the list of protected industries in 1860, and lace in 1861. A Factory Extension act in 1867 had then ordered the inclusion of all works where more than 50 people were employed. The initial legislation might merely take the form of ordering employers to do certain things, or of prohibiting certain practices. But there was a rapid recognition that, without adequate supervision, such legislation would be totally ineffective. The numbers of factory inspectors grew from the initial two, of 1833, to thousands. Inspection was also the next step in mines legislation, and in 1851, the Royal College of Mines was established with the specific aim of training mines’ inspectors. A willingness to override the objections of some of its own members had been apparent throughout the nineteenth century, perhaps first with the abolition of slavery. But it took a considerable amount of parliamentary effort to compel ship owners and mine owners, together with their shareholders, to accept the need for safety and other regulatory legislation. And there were workplaces which governments made no attempt to regulate: domestic service remained an occupation with long hours and little protection from abuse and danger, with young women carrying heavy loads and working with dangerous cleaning chemicals with no protection. Agriculture, too, was impossible to regulate, since on many holdings the issue was not of paid work but of families working together. The only way that child-working in farming was brought under control was by the roundabout method of the education acts. Shop and office work was seen as more genteel than factory work, but even there the dangers of long hours and inappropriate conditions existed. Young women might have to work long hours and sleep in dormitories on the premises so that they could do cleaning and restocking work outside their normal hours. While the government made no attempt to deal with family-run shops, they did regulate the large ‘department’ stores. The 1906 Shop Hours Act ended the obligation of shop girls to sleep on the premises, and the 1913 Act established that shop workers should work ‘only’ 64 hours per week. The governments of this period can be seen extending both the range of trades over which legislative control should be exercised and the aspects of work which should be controlled. The appointment of inspectors, ostensibly to check on ages and hours, made enforcing greater safety possible, with the fencing of machines and provision of protective clothing. But probably more forceful than inspection was the threat posed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1897, which ordered that workmen injured at work were to receive compensation unless the employer could prove that there had been no negligence. This was an improvement from the previous and reverse situation, since workmen, particularly those injured at work, could not afford to prove in court their employers’ negligence. A change had occurred over the years in government thinking: workers were no longer seen as being responsible for their own conditions and forced into confrontation with the person who controlled their livelihood and possibly accommodation; governments, of both parties, had accepted the role of the state in regulating life and work.

ESSAYS • 133

a) b)

For what reasons did governments continue to extend regulation of the workplace in this period? (30 marks) How effective and universal were the mechanisms which were put in place? (60 marks)

Remember that the balance of marks should decide the amount of time you give to each part of the question; part (a) should provide a link to earlier legislation, as well as discussing the motives of differing governments. There is room to compare the legislation of the two political parties. In part (b), take advantage of the three key words – effective, universal and mechanisms – to do more than itemise what the new regulations were supposed to achieve and to comment on their actual effect. A thematic approach will be more efficient than a chronological account.

6. Trade unionism a) b)

What factors led to the formation of the ‘mass’ trade unions of the 1880s and 1890s? How successful were they in achieving the aims they had set for themselves?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Until the 1880s, trade unions had been elite organisations. What their members had to offer was their skill and the fact that it would be difficult to replace them at short notice. They had therefore been able to improve their conditions of work, to enhance their pay and, above all, to prevent the dilution of their work by less skilled workers. Pressure from unions had played a part in encouraging governments to legislate for the textile mills and even for the coal mines. This is not to suggest that the existence of a trade union ensured idyllic conditions of work. The coal miners, in particular, suffered from the geographical isolation of their places of work, often in villages where there was no other employer or landlord. But there had been improvements, even in coal mining. The new development of the 1880s and the 1890s was that workers with no skills, who could in theory be easily replaced from the pool of the unemployed, formed unions and used their numbers to negotiate improvements in their wages and working conditions in trades where conditions had not been improved by legislation. The first of the key factors which led to the formation of these new unions was the improvement in the economy following a downturn in the 1870s. The only bargaining tool that the workers had was that they could close the works. The two biggest unions established in this period, the dockers and the gas workers, were in a position to threaten the wellbeing of London, which gave them additional leverage. But this was only possible when there were insufficient other workers to take their places. In addition, there was a new mood among workers who read and thought about their position: the idea of ‘scabbing’ or of working as a blackleg became increasingly unacceptable, particularly given the availability of other work. Newspapers and tracts putting forward socialist messages circulated among the workers and encouraged them to take action. Workers had also

134 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

become more politicised by being enfranchised by the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1867, and the younger men were literate and served by the increasing range of popular newspapers. Conditions which had been difficult and dangerous for decades finally began to appear unacceptable, and the mechanism for dealing with them was to combine with other workers to put pressure on the employers. Thus new unions were formed, with low subscriptions, but with sufficient numbers of members to afford a few officials to negotiate and to speak for their followers. b) As far as the three ‘great’ strikes of these two decades were concerned, the workers who combined achieved what they had demanded. It would not, however, be accurate to suggest that they radically changed the status of unskilled workers, or that they would be safe from unemployment with the next downturn in the economy. The Bryant and May match-girls who went on strike in 1888 were fortunate to obtain the support of various intellectuals and society personalities, such as the wealthy Angela Burdett-Coutts, who were shocked at the conditions in which the match-girls worked. Dipping the wooden matches into open vats of liquid phosphorus, the girls inhaled vapour which caused necrosis of the jaw (known as phossy jaw from the deformation of the bone tissue) as well as terminal kidney damage. Their demands for improved pay and better conditions, including such elementary precautions as covered vats and washing facilities, were at first met with contempt by the company, since such young and unskilled women could easily be replaced. But the public sympathy and, it must be added, photogenic picket lines soon forced the company into acceding to all the demands of the newly formed union. The gas strike of the following year led to the formation of a ‘mass’ union and the achievement of the strikers’ demands, although in this case the strikers were adult men whose job was dangerous in a much more public way than personal illness. London had become reliant on gas for its street and house lighting and the great Beckton gas works employed hundreds of thousands of men. Their demand for shorter hours was based in part on the extreme danger of tired men working with lethal materials. Will Thorne, the gas workers’ leader, was supported by the political leaders of the East End of London, but the main reason for their rapid victory was that London could not survive without their product; and the knock-on effect on the demand for coal was injurious across the country to many influential coal owners. Also in 1889 came the strike of the London dockers, who, like the Bryant and May workers, were the beneficiaries of friendly publicity and achieved their immediate aims. Dockers in London were employed as casual labour by the ship owners to unload cargoes as the ships came in. They might wait at the dockside all day and find no work or, perhaps more frustrating, be given a short job, which simply ensured that they were not available when a whole day’s work was being allocated. Led into strike action by Ben Tillett, they demanded a minimum of four hours’ work at a time and a basic rate of six pence (6d) an hour (the ‘dockers’ tanner’ as it was known from the old name for a sixpenny piece) as well as an overtime rate of eight pence for urgent jobs that went into the night. The ship owners were at first confident of defeating them, since in the riverside areas of London there was no other work; but the dockers’ wives marched through the fashionable West End, carrying on poles the fishheads which were all that they could afford to eat, and money came in to support them from sources as diverse as the Salvation Army and West Ham Football Club. So the dockers held out, while valuable cargoes rotted in ships which could not sail again until they had been unloaded and while Londoners could not obtain coal to heat their homes or hay and oats to feed their horses; the ship owners gave in. Thus a minimum of two shillings a day was guaranteed for each

ESSAYS • 135

docker who found work; in comparison, it is worth noting that at this time a domestic servant might earn £20 (400 shillings) in a whole year. Ben Tillett was able to form a union which began with a membership of 30,000 and soon had affiliated branches in other ports around the coast. His and other unions were soon accepted as members of the TUC and, in the early twentieth century, these unions joined with others to form powerful coalitions. These workers achieved their initial aims, but other groups of unskilled did less well. Only a modest economic downturn would ensure that there were plenty of desperate men ready to break a strike in order to earn food for their families. It continued to be true that those without skills were the most vulnerable to unemployment, even if their pay and conditions, once there was ample work, improved as a result of their action. On the other hand, the last years of the nineteenth century saw unions of unskilled workers forming, even in industries which already had craft unions. The General Railway Workers union would never have the status of ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, but unionisation gave these unskilled workers something to bargain with. Total trade union membership, which had been 750,000 in 1888, had risen to 2 million by 1900 and to 4 million by 1914. The mines strike of 1912 attracted the support of over 1 million miners. These mass unions also had a clear influence on politics, ensuring the gradual development of a parliamentary Labour Party, which could work to improve basic minimum conditions for all workers.

‘The status and power of the Trade union movement changed completely during this period.’ a) b)

Demonstrate the truth of this statement. (15 marks) What effect did the growing power of the trade union movement have on the conditions of working people? (15 marks)

The statement which begins this question may appear exaggerated until you compare the start of the period to the end; you should do this in terms both of workplace power and of political influence. The numbers involved in trade unionism are also significant, but need to be compared with numbers in other working-class movements or with population statistics in general to provide a context. Part (b) asks you to focus on the conditions of workers, and you may decide to deal with some specific case histories, such as the dockers and the gas workers, as well as longer campaigns such as that of the miners.

7. Social reform in the ministries of Gladstone and Disraeli a) b)

Compare the aims of Conservatives and Liberals in social policy. Which of the two parties did more for the welfare of the people between 1868 and 1894?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) Both the Liberals and the Conservatives claimed to have had the aim of ‘improving society’ and both built on past reforms; the self-sustaining momentum of a series of reforms can often camouflage the clear differences between the two parties. At the lowest level in society, neither

136 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

party was prepared to make legislative changes in the workings of the Poor Law, though local authorities adjusted and changed their approach to the very poor. On the other hand, both were prepared to tackle the issue of education, following the Conservative Parliamentary Reform Act, 1867, which had enfranchised the mass of the people whose illiteracy was a matter of concern to all politicians. It is possible that only the Gladstonian Liberals would have safeguarded the rights of Non-Conformists by ensuring that the Christian religious instruction in the board schools was non-denominational; but once the pattern was set, the Conservatives, in their education acts, followed it. Both parties initiated legislation which dealt with Oxford and Cambridge; Gladstone was concerned to ensure the equal rights of Non-Conformists to teach and to hold scholarships; his 1871 Act removed the ‘test’ Holy Communion which had been a stumbling block for dissenters since the seventeenth century. Meanwhile, in the 1876 Oxford and Cambridge Act, the concern of Disraeli’s ministry was to guarantee that a greater proportion of the substantial revenues of the wealthier colleges went on education, rather than on other expenditure. Workplace reform engaged both parties; at first sight it may seem odd that the Conservatives did more for workers than the Liberals in this period. But when we consider the constituencies most likely to return members of each party, and, crucially, likely to support each party in other ways, the distinction becomes more explicable. On the whole, it was Gladstone’s government which attempted to regulate the coal mines in 1872 and 1881. The mines were mostly owned and controlled by the great landowners, and many were in rural areas, which returned Conservative MPs. Whatever the miners wanted, the mine owners were not enthusiastic about increased safety and hours legislation. In other areas of industry, where mill, factory and ship owners, as well as shopkeepers, were more likely to vote Liberal, but who also resented interference by government as strongly as did the mine owners, significant legislation was on the whole passed under Conservative ministries. The 1874 Factory Act finally ensured that a ten-hour day would be worked by almost all mill workers; the legislation was then gradually extended to other trades and to other workshops, but the initiative had come from the Conservatives. A similar Conservative commitment can be seen in the 1876 Merchant Shipping Act, and its successor in 1890, the work of Salisbury’s ministry. The first act was emasculated by ship owners and the trading interest, mostly sitting on the Liberal benches, and more than ten years were to pass before the lives of merchant seamen were made more secure by the second. The Climbing Boys Act of 1875, again a Conservative measure, could similarly be seen as an attack on the freedoms of respectable tradesmen in the Liberal towns. In the towns, again, the Conservatives did more to regulate than the Liberals, for most of the public health acts were concerned with urban rather than with rural problems. The 1875 Public Health Act, codifying a whole range of existing legislation, was in the nature of a tidying piece of legislation by Disraeli’s government. But the 1876 Enclosures Act, which saved Epping Forest and other open spaces from the encroachment of speculative builders, was a radical piece of reform affecting the boroughs, but introduced by the party traditionally of the counties. And with the Rivers Pollution Act of the same year, Disraeli’s team was again targeting the great industrialists who so strongly supported the Liberal opposition. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act made the lives of shopkeepers in the towns more difficult and less profitable. Gladstone, too, presided over legislation to regulate town trade, but his Licensing Act of 1872, which controlled the numbers of pubs in towns and regulated measures, was an attack on the great brewers, rather than small and medium-sized businesses.

ESSAYS • 137

Both parties introduced legislation which could be seen to have a moral content. In an attempt to prevent recidivism, Gladstone’s 1869 Habitual Criminals Act ordered that any released prisoner who had been convicted more than once in the past could be subject to seven years’ supervision after discharge. It was hoped that the fatherly eye would ensure a life led in honesty from then onwards. The 1872 Bastardy Law Amendment Act began the long process of achieving justice for the children of illegitimate relationships, although in the absence of modern paternity testing methods it was hard to ensure that fathers were forced to pay to maintain their children. Disraeli’s ministry similarly undid a historic injustice with the 1875 Employers and Workmen Act. Before the act, breach of contract by workers had been a criminal offence, whereas breach of contract for an employer had been a matter for the civil courts. Now both sides would have recourse to the civil law. The following year, it was, perhaps surprisingly, the Conservatives who introduced the Cruelty to Animals Act. But the subject of the act was animals used in scientific experiments, rather than in blood sports. b) The wealth of legislation produced by the ministries of Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury is remarkable in comparison to earlier years; in many ways the two parties complemented one another, rounding off and adjusting groups of reforms. In education, the two parties took turns to push forward the reforms. Where Gladstone’s first ministry ensured that the school boards were established and sufficient school places supplied, it was Disraeli’s ministry, in 1876, which authorised local school boards to impose compulsory education if the ratepayers accepted it; and while it was Gladstone’s ministry, in Mundella’s Act, which extended the principle of compulsion, the Conservatives, in 1891, provided the equitable corollary, which was that elementary education should be provided free. It was, however, the Conservatives who went furthest in transforming the way in which education was managed, putting the responsibility, in 1888, into the hands of the new county councils and thus ensuring that any radical ideas from education professionals were toned down by ‘their’ people in the Conservative heartlands. In the important field of education, therefore, it is impossible to say which of the parties did more for the people. As far as the health of the towns is concerned, there is no question that the Conservatives legislated more, although it may be true that Liberal borough councils and Liberal mayors, like Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham, took advantage of the opportunities thus created. After the failure of the 1848 Public Health Act, effective control mechanisms were put into place, and the problems of river pollution were specifically targeted with lasting benefits being achieved. The dwellings of the poor remained squalid and unpleasant, but the worst excesses of landlords could be curbed by medical officers of health with sufficient determination. In the workplace, too, it appears that the Conservatives achieved more than the Liberals: the tenhour day had been a target since the 1830s, and the results were not only improved health for the textile workers concerned but also enhanced pay when pressure of work required men to work longer hours and thus earn overtime payments at a higher rate. The problems of coal mining were much more intractable, and the lack of alternative employment in many mining areas left workers more vulnerable to the will of the mine owners, even when inspectors were able to gain access to the pits. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives achieved a great deal in social reform, although both had other priorities, which occasionally distracted attention from the need for reform. Gladstone, in

138 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

particular, was side-tracked into trying to solve the problems of Ireland, and his dominant personality meant that the Liberals achieved less in the later part of his career than in his first ministry. Disraeli, in his turn, was more concerned with foreign and imperial policy than with the details of home reforms; but his able home secretary, Richard Cross, made certain that much was done. Both parties ensured that social reform became and remained a serious topic for politicians and for Parliament, and that future ministries, like theirs, would be judged as much on their achievements in improving the welfare of the people as on any other criterion.

a) b)

What social reforms were passed during Disraeli’s ministries? (30 marks) Do you consider that these reforms demonstrate that the Conservatives had a serious commitment to social improvement?(60 marks)

Part (a) is very straightforward; the best way to demonstrate your understanding is to group reforms rather than merely listing them: environmental improvement; welfare and education, working conditions and so on. The definition of what constitutes a ‘serious commitment’ may be made more precise if you take the opportunity to compare Conservative legislation with that of the Liberal Party, and if you consider the particular social groups which benefited from the social reform programme.

8. Social reform and the ‘great’ Liberal ministry a) b)

How extensive was the programme of social reforms achieved by the Liberals between 1906 and 1914? Can the social policies of this ministry fairly be described as ‘the beginnings of the welfare state’?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The social reform policies of the Liberal governments of 1906–14 encompassed almost all the issues which had engaged reformers over the previous hundred years. Reforms in public health were not a strong feature of these ministries, since so much legislation had been passed in the preceding decades and, similarly, the education system had reached a plateau where it would remain for some years before the next advance: the provision of elementary education for all, with secondary education for those few who could demonstrate their ability, remained the system until the end of the Second World War. Two measures put through in 1906 were designed to help the poorest children: the School Meals Act and the Medical Inspection (schools) Act. Both these acts originated in the shocking discoveries of malnutrition and disease at the recruiting offices of the Boer War, but they were to help schoolchildren from poor families for three-quarters of the century. On the other hand, the stigma attached to receiving free meals was one which, once established, was hard to eradicate, and which was an echo of the stigma of the workhouse, not least since the school meals were provided through the mechanisms of the Poor Law. Workplace reform also attracted the attention of the Liberals, and in 1906 the Workmen’s Compensation Act ensured that injuries sustained at work could be the subject of compensation

ESSAYS • 139

much more easily than before by the simple mechanism of changing the burden of proof. Where previously a worker had had to prove the negligence of the employer, now it was up to the employer to prove that he had not been at fault. In 1908 an Eight Hour Act was passed, building on legislation which had accumulated over a century and extending well beyond the textile mills which had been the subject of so much earlier legislation. Despite the Eight Hour Act, however, it remained easy for employers to demand longer hours and hard for workmen, especially in unskilled trades and in periods of economic downturn, to resist these demands. Despite the comparative prosperity of the decade before the Great War, which reduced the incidence of unemployment, no attempt was made to put in place mechanisms to ensure full employment in the future: the Liberals – not surprisingly – refused to support Ramsay McDonald’s Right to Work Bill, which would have compelled local authorities to provide work for the unemployed. Although the Liberal government went on to produce important social reforms, few of these were in a form that the Labour Party would have chosen: the Trade Boards Act did little more than provide a negotiating mechanism for wages in the ‘sweated’ trades and the Labour Exchanges did not create jobs, though they possibly made the finding of them more straightforward. Reforms which did break new ground were the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 and the National Insurance Act of 1911; though both were limited in their scope they did provide new ways to deal with poverty in old age, or in times of ill health. The expense of some of these reforms was, in part, the cause of the dispute with the House of Lords, which in turn reduced the amount of Commons time available for reform legislation. Although the Liberal ministries achieved enough reforms to be given the title ‘great’, the programme of reform was less extensive than the needs of the people. b) The seeds of the ‘welfare state’ had been planted much earlier, if by welfare we mean provision for the less fortunate sections of society. But if the term is given the meaning it enjoyed in the second half of the twentieth century, of entitlement to certain minimum standards of living, work and housing, then it is doubtful whether more than a very few of the Liberal reforms merit the title. As far as education was concerned, the concept of entitlement was limited to the elementary stage, and any further progression was reserved for those who demonstrated that they were ‘deserving’ by doing well in an examination. The money provided to private schools for the benefit of these pupils was used for new buildings and enhanced facilities for the fee-paying children as well. At the same time, the conviction was growing that a further entitlement should be possible and had it not been for the depression of the 1920s, Fisher’s Act of 1918 might have extended educational provision radically. Instead, post-war depression and a further major war delayed the provision for almost half a century. Attempts were made to ensure that young criminals did not become permanent members of the criminal and prison populations. Laws passed in 1907 established a probation service to provide effective supervision within the community as an alternative to prison, and the so-called borstal institutions attempted to provide for young offenders secure custody with a more educative atmosphere than the prisons. In 1912, the Criminal Justice Administration Act attempted to reduce the prison population further by allowing more time for the payment of fines before prison was

140 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

ordered. But these reforms, like the reforms in education, were targeted at very particular sections of the population, whereas a genuine welfare state would offer benefits to all. The Old Age Pension Act of 1908 might be seen as a genuine ‘welfare’ reform. The concept of the deserving poor and the chancy nature of ‘out-relief’ with its regional variations and stigma of ‘charity’ was replaced by a non-contributory scheme which provided security in old age without requiring the recipients to ‘qualify’ in any way. But the pension was extremely small: just 5 shillings (25p) a week, provided all other income sources added up to less than 10 shillings (50p) a week (for comparison we may note that in 1911 MPs salaries were fixed at £400 per year, or more than £7 per week). It was only awarded at the age of 70, towards the end of the average life span of the period. It is, however, the only example of a non-means tested provision in British history until the Beveridge Report of 1942. Although the Liberal ministry produced an important National Insurance Act in 1911, it was dependent on previous contributions and hedged about with conditions. This is not to say that it did no good; on the contrary, for seasonal workers, and for workers unexpectedly sick or injured, the national insurance scheme, with substantial government funding, provided the difference between, on the one hand, penury and the workhouse, and, on the other, a means of survival until times improved. The problem was that there could be no ‘cover’ for the families of workers, so that a sick wife or sick child, or other circumstance that required the worker to take time off, was not covered. It was recognised that unemployment was not necessary deliberate, and the establishment of labour exchanges was the government’s attempt to deal with the issue. A place subsidised by public money, where employers could post their vacancies, and workers could seek jobs without days of travel from factory to factory, was a measure of the importance attached to the provision of work. Similarly, the attempt, by the Trade Boards, from 1909 onwards, to regulate the wages of the lowest paid was a recognition that the fact of having a job was not necessarily a guarantee of family wellbeing and that employers were not necessarily benevolent. Nor was all the legislation of the Liberal governments designed for the benefit of the people, as we shall see in Chapter 8; a great deal of their time was devoted to other matters, to the conflict with the House of Lords and to the issue of Irish Home Rule. But because they valued the support of the infant Labour Party, they were impelled to consider social and workplace reform and achieved some useful measures which were to change public perceptions of what governments should and should not do, and thus provide the basis for the later discussions which led to the welfare state emerging later in the century.

a) b)

How was the condition of the poor improved by the Liberal ministries of 1906–14? ‘The Liberal governments of 1906–14 deserve to be called ‘great’ for their social reforms alone. How far do you agree with this statement?

(15 marks)

(15 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Landslide majority gave an unprecedented opportunity for social reform; on the other hand, different preoccupations limited what they actually achieved.

ESSAYS • 141

Para 2: Poverty: outline of existing situation, then discussion of pensions and national insurance. Para 3: Other reforms which were likely to benefit the poor: school meals, school medical inspections, labour exchanges, trade union reforms. Para 4: A conclusion to the first part, showing that there was no actual structural change and therefore no major alteration to the overall conditions of the poor. b) Para 5: Explanation of the term: the pre-war Liberal government is known as the ‘Great Liberal Ministry’ because of Lloyd George’s revolutionary solutions to some of the problems of poverty: seasonal employment and unemployment in particular. Para 6: Other reforms with implications for the poor, e.g. school meals and labour exchanges, could be seen as treating symptoms rather than dealing with the causes of poverty; help for trade unions, which may in the long run have helped the poor, was designed in fact to win Labour support in the struggle with the House of Lords. Para 7: The implications of the reforms, in terms of their cost, led to more problems in their turn, which diverted the Liberals from the social reform programme: the budget of 1909 and the dispute with the Lords, both of which took up enormous amounts of parliamentary time. Para 8: The onset of war in 1914 did not help the poor, who were swept into a jingoistic frenzy to fight in a conflict which did not directly concern them. Conclusion: It is a fact that it is known as the ‘great’ ministry, and it did change the shape of British social welfare by recognising that unemployment and illness were not necessarily signs of moral weakness but social ills which needed public solutions. With the concept of a non-contributory pension – an idea which lasted to the end of the twentieth century – the Great Liberal Ministry could be said to have provided the blueprint for the social reforms of the whole of the twentieth century.

9. Proponents and opponents of reform a) b)

What arguments were put forward against government policies aimed at social improvement in this period? To what extent were the groups which were against reform able to influence policy?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The arguments in favour of social reform appear more obvious to the modern student than the arguments against, particularly in the context of the dangerous and unpleasant industrial practices and living conditions of the nineteenth century. At the time, however, their appeal was far from obvious and the arguments against each social reform in turn were put forcefully by influential groups. In some instances the opposition was sufficient to damage, delay or remove legislation.

142 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

The main argument was the pseudo-scientific one that there were natural laws in economics as there were in nature and science and that to interfere with these laws was to court disaster. Levels of employment and levels of wages would find their own equilibrium if left alone. It was also argued that the changes would damage trade and industry. Every attempt to limit working hours or the categories of people who could work, in factories or underground, was greeted with declarations that businesses would collapse or that costs would go up so that British goods would cease to be competitive abroad. The attempt to raise the minimum age for ‘boys’ working underground in coal mines from 10 years to 11 years was resisted for months by the coal owners in 1909. It seemed inappropriate that politicians, who might never have run a business, should dictate to entrepreneurs how to run their operations. A further argument against reform was one of simple justice: that the money of those careful and efficient enough to have sufficient wealth to pay tax was being squandered for the benefit of the feckless and idle. This was how town improvements were seen, since the bulk of rates income did not come from the areas most in need of improvement; poor rates were – obviously – paid by men who never expected to be in receipt of poor relief. This was to be the argument against the Old Age Pension Act of 1908, which would, it was argued, encourage people to be shiftless rather than thrifty. The character argument was taken further and some expressed the view that it was morally debilitating to be looked after by strangers and therefore children should not be taught by public servants, whose obligation was to the state and not to the parents of their pupils. Out-relief was thought to have a similarly damaging effect, encouraging people to look outside their own families for help which should come from within. Underlying many of these concerns was the awareness that people were simply not sufficiently grateful. The increasing range of education, feeding and being fed by the popular press, seemed to result merely in further demands: men who had shorter hours to work filled their leisure with union meetings which formulated further demands. Opponents of reform looked with concern at the sales figures for tracts like ‘The Communist Manifesto’, and felt that compulsory religious instruction in the board schools was not enough to counteract such pernicious influences. b) Those who were opposed to reform were able to have some influence in Parliament in various ways. A substantial success for the ‘dirty party’, as those against reform were unfairly labelled, was the removal of the 1848 Public Health Act. It had been resisted in Parliament until the outbreak of cholera of 1848 helped to push it through, and it continued to be criticised until its opponents were able to force its repeal. On the other hand, their victory was short-lived as a steady stream of individual environmental laws improved river and air quality, revolutionised sewage and water systems, and guaranteed open spaces and improved standards for housing. Medical Officers of Health saw their regulatory powers increased by law after law. Opposition in Parliament could reduce the effectiveness of reforms by insisting that amendments were accepted to ensure some kind of bill was passed. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1876 is a case in point. The principle was accepted that a load line should be drawn on ships, but the ship owners and shareholders in shipping companies who sat in Parliament were able to render the act useless by leaving the responsibility in the hands of the owners. Their victory lasted 16 years before Board of Trade inspectors were authorised to supervise the marking of Plimsoll lines.

ESSAYS • 143

The last of the Climbing Boys Acts, in 1875, saw the end of the slow process of achieving effective reform. Since the eighteenth century, master sweeps had argued that there was no alternative to the use of boys, and act after act had proved ineffective; but eventually, the licensing of sweeps and the threat of losing these licences ended the practice. Another effect of the arguments of reform opponents was that governments often drafted legislation which was permissive rather than compulsive. The development of education was a case in point. The ratepayers were at first merely required to ensure that there were sufficient school places for every child in the area. The next step was to allow the local authority to introduce compulsory education, but ten years passed before elementary education was compulsory for all. A similar permissive approach was adopted with housing for workers and with the provision of public open spaces. There were, however, many occasions on which all the claims of infringement of liberty, of distortion of the laws of the market place and of encouraging anti-social behaviour were ignored, and governments ensured the enactment of important measures with no sign of compromise. The 1872 Licensing Act alienated the enemies of reform, who felt that market forces should decide the number of public houses in any area and that the axiom ‘caveat emptor – let the buyer beware’ should settle issues of diluted and adulterated measures in licensed premises. At the same time, however, it upset those who hoped for improvements in society, since the licensees were compensated with public money wherever excess pubs were shut down under the law. The temperance movement approved of closing pubs but not of paying the sellers of drink for their loss. Where governments were determined, opposition was usually ineffective. The mental climate of this period ensured that reform would triumph and that opponents of social reform could at best only dilute measures and could only do so for a limited period. Once governments accepted for themselves the responsibility of improving society and the lives of citizens, the flood of legislation became unstoppable.

a) b)

What political and international benefits were predicted by the groups who favoured social reforms? To what extent was the steady improvement in social welfare inevitable?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

The key to this question is to look beyond the social benefits of social reform to international benefits, like healthier armies and a stronger economy, and to the political parties who hoped not merely for a grateful vote but for a more aware and committed approach to the conduct of politics. Part (b) requires you to consider whether social reform has its own momentum and whether the enfranchisement of the urban population made sure that there would be more social improvement. Be sure that you end with a clear conclusion: was social reform inevitable? Or was it merely seen to be so in the confident years before the First World War?

144 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

Part 3: Sources 1. The effects of the Poor Law Source A: Circular from the Local Government Board, 1871

The increase in the cost of out-door relief is so great as to excite apprehension; and to suggest that measures should be taken, not only to check any further increase, but to diminish the present amount . . . It has been shown that in numerous instances the Guardians disregard the advantages not only to the ratepayers but to the poor themselves from the offer of in-door in preference to out-door relief. A certainty of obtaining out-door relief in his own home whenever he may ask for it extinguishes in the mind of the labourer all motive for husbanding his resources and induces him to rely exclusively on the rates instead of his own savings for such relief as he may require. It removes every incentive to self-reliance and prudent forethought on his part, and induces him, moreover, to apply for relief on occasions when the circumstances are not such as to render him absolutely in need of it. Source B: An extract from In the Workhouse: Christmas Day, by George R. Sims, 1903

Last night my wife lay dying Starved in a filthy den I had never been to the parish I came to the parish then. I swallowed my pride in coming For, ere the ruin came I held up my head as a trader And I bore a spotless name. I came to the parish, craving Bread for a starving wife Bread for the woman who’d loved me Through fifty years of life; And what do you think they told me Mocking my awful grief That ‘the House’ was open to us But they wouldn’t give ‘out relief ’. . . . Then I told her ‘the House’ was open; She had heard the ways of that For her bloodless cheeks went crimson And up in her rags she sat, Crying, ‘Bide the Christmas here, John, We’ve never had one apart; I think I can bear the hunger, – The other would break my heart.’

SOURCES • 145 Source C: Diagram to show poor relief in England and Wales, 1840–1900

Mean number in 000’s

1200

Indoor Outdoor

1000

Total

Figure 4.3 Graph of poor relief in England and Wales, 1840–1900

800 600 400 200 0

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

Source D: A modern historian sums up the Liberal view of the Poor Law, 1909

The Edwardian break from the precepts of the Victorian minimal state carried with it an implicit redefinition of the nature of citizenship. The notion of personal responsibility was by no means abandoned. The Poor Law remained in place and the distinction between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor was maintained by all engaged in both the discussion and implementation of the new social legislation. National insurance was based on contributions, and private industrial insurance companies and friendly societies were integrated into the administration of the scheme. Moreover, registration at a labour exchange was necessary before insurance benefits could be claimed, ensuring that unemployed individuals were actively seeking to re-enter the labour market. Yet there was also an acceptance that there were systemic social and economic problems, which no amount of individual ‘character’ could overcome, and that these social evils required a social solution organised by society’s collective expression, the state. On grounds of ethics and efficiency poverty was deemed not only detrimental to the poor themselves, but to society as a whole.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a) b) c) d)

Study source D. How far do you consider that the ‘Victorian minimal state’ still existed at the beginning of the twentieth century? How effective do you find the extracts of the poem quoted in source B as propaganda against the Poor Law? Study sources A and C. What light does source C shed on the claims made in source A? Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which, in this period, the poor were seen to be ‘to blame’ for their predicament.

(10) (25) (25)

(60)

146 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919 ANSWERS

a) The ‘Victorian minimal state’ had already begun to change well before 1901. The view that the government should, at most, protect the youngest and most helpless had been transformed into a belief that the welfare of almost all groups of citizens should be a matter of concern for the nation as a whole. The transformation can be seen in the continuing imposition of income tax and the steadily increasing levels of local rates. It can also be seen in the extension of factory legislation, from protecting children to limiting the hours of all; in the regulation of building and environmental issues; in the extension of the franchise, which was both a result and a cause of the ‘redefinition of the nature of citizenship’; in the provision of education for all, and in the increasing assistance offered to the poor without the stigma of the workhouse principle of ‘less eligibility’. b) These three stanzas are a small part of a much parodied poem. As the graph in source C shows, the poem does not in fact reflect accurately the availability of out-relief. It is, however, a powerful image and, like Dickens’ depiction of the workhouse in Oliver Twist three quarters of a century earlier, it was very influential. The effect of the poem is enhanced by the fact that the narrator has unexpectedly fallen on hard times from a respectable position in society. Although the point is not made explicitly, he has, as a trader, contributed to the Poor Rate for many years. Similarly, his marriage has lasted for 50 years, so that he is clearly not young and feckless and he makes it clear that self-sufficiency has been a matter of pride. The repetitions of the word ‘parish’ and the word ‘bread’ have the effect of reminding the reader of the supposed obligations of a Christian society (since by 1903, individual parishes were not responsible for the workhouses). The use of the word ‘House’ was sufficiently understood by all potential readers to stigmatise the system. The level of poverty of this elderly couple is made clear: their ‘filthy den’ and the ‘rags’ in which the wife is clad, together with the reference to ‘hunger’ and the use of the words ‘starved’ and ‘starving’. But at the same time, the closeness of the couple is emphasised, as the poem states that the woman would prefer to starve than to be separated from her husband – and the workhouses operated a system of separation of the sexes as an ingredient in the provision of assistance ‘less eligible’ than surviving at home. The depiction of cold-hearted officials mocking his grief and enforcing their regulations rather than providing even a morsel of bread is full of pathos and ensures that this tragic tale made efficient propaganda, perhaps particularly to the sentimental frame of mind so clear in other Edwardian songs and popular pictures. c) Source A, dated 1871, refers to the steady increase in the cost of outdoor relief, but source C indicates that the increase has only occurred in the previous four years and that the level remains lower than during the 1830s and the 1840s. As a proportion of all those in receipt of relief, it has certainly gone up slightly, but its really low level in the 1850s is matched by a lower level of indoor relief as well, an indication of economic strength during the decade. During the 1860s, the total number of people in receipt of relief rose to a level not seen since the 1830s, and the provision of out-relief was in part the result of a shortage of workhouse space.

SOURCES • 147

As the rest of the table shows, the decline in the provision of out-relief was more a result of the overall decline in pauperism than the effect of any measures taken by the board. The progressive removal of the sick from the poorhouses to separate, though still Poor Rate-funded, hospitals was an important development, as was the growing preference for putting children into foster homes rather than into the institutions of the Poor Law. These help to explain the decline in the proportion of paupers to about 2.5 per cent of the total population by the end of the century. Thus source A is exaggerating the expense and the incidence of out-relief, in its pursuit of the official ‘line’ and in the hope that the ratepayers would be reassured that something was being done to save their money. d) The whole thrust of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 had been to ensure that paupers did not ‘take advantage’ of the ratepayers of their area. The principle of ‘less eligibility’ made it clear that acceptance of poor relief should appear to be a punishment for being poor. Source B reflects two of the elements which made poor relief less attractive than managing alone: the fact that relief was only available in ‘the House’ and the regulation that the sexes were kept apart once within the poorhouse. Source A makes clear the view that poverty is the fault of the poor: people lacking in ‘self-reliance’ and ‘prudent forethought’ who have failed to ‘husband resources’ and who ask for help when they are not ‘absolutely in need of it’. Source B, on the other hand, makes the point that ‘the ruin’ could come unexpectedly and devastatingly, as indeed happened in the agricultural sector of the 1870s and the trade downturn of the 1880s. Gradually, however, the view was accepted, as described in Source D, that some of the poor were more ‘deserving’ than others and that for some poverty had come as a result of events over which they had no control. The Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 was a recognition that the elderly could not continue to work, or to rely on their families, throughout their old age and that for some, wages had never been sufficient to allow for ‘putting by’. The National Insurance Act, 1911, recognised that some work was seasonal at best and the Labour Exchanges, set up in 1909, were designed to ensure that people keen to work were made aware of what jobs were available. The removal of the stigma of pauperism from people who needed hospital attention was a further step away from a ‘blame culture’ and the provision of school medical inspections and school meals by the Liberal government again recognised the fact that some who suffered from poverty could not be held to blame for it. Source C shows the total numbers of those in receipt of Poor Relief gradually declining. On the other hand, as Source D confirms, the poor were expected, even in the twentieth century, to do their best to ameliorate their own condition. In order to obtain the unemployment pay offered by the 1911 National Insurance act, contributions were required, and the stigma attached to accepting help from the workhouse continued long after the old age pension was universally recognised as a right. The view that unemployment, illness or old age was the fault of the victim was slow to die.

148 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the meaning of the term ‘outdoor’ or ‘out’ relief as used in sources A, B and C. (3) Study Source A. What arguments does it put forward against supplying ‘out-relief’? (5) Study source C. What does this table reveal about the extent of poverty in Britain in this period? (5) Compare the images of the ‘out-relief’ claimant offered by sources A and B. Which do you find the more convincing? (5) Using these sources and your own knowledge, show the extent to which the attitudes of governments and the public towards poverty changed in this period. (12)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE B a) b) c)

To which of the regulations of the workhouse was the dying wife so opposed in the third stanza quoted here? What were the main causes of poverty during the nineteenth century? To what extent did the reforms introduced by the Liberal ministries of 1906–14 improve the lives of the poor in Britain?

(5) (7) (18)

2. Changes in education Source E: The Revised Code for Education, 13 February 1862

The managers of schools to claim one penny per scholar for every attendance after the first 100 at the morning or afternoon meetings of the school and after the first 12 of the evening meetings. One-third, however, of the sum thus claimable is forfeited if the scholar fails to satisfy the inspector in reading, one-third if in writing and one-third if in arithmetic . . . The general result seems to be this: if no improvement takes place in the instruction given . . . a great public economy will be effected. On the contrary, if these defects are removed, I believe that the allowance to the schools will amount, after a very little time, to almost as much as at present. The result, however, will be contemporaneous with enormously increased efficiency in the schools.

SOURCES • 149 Source F: The Times, 6 July 1867, p. 11

It is a settled principle, finally established by the Revised Code, that the public money should only be distributed to schools in which a certain degree of efficiency is obtained, and in proportion to the amount of that efficiency.

Source G: The Taunton Report on the Endowed Schools, 1867–8

If one looks at the enormous numbers of unmarried women in the middle class, who have to earn their own bread, at the great drain of the male population of this country for the army, for India, for the colonies, at the expensiveness of living here and consequent lateness of marriage, it seems . . . that the instruction of the girls of a middle-class family for anyone who thinks much of it, is important to the very last degree.

Source H: W.E. Forster on the Education Bill, 1870

It is calculated that in Liverpool the number of children between five and thirteen who ought to receive an elementary education is 80,000; but, as far as we can ascertain, 20,000 of them attend no school whatever while at least another 20,000 attend schools where they get an education not worth having . . . As a Yorkshireman, I am sorry to say that, from what I hear, Leeds appears to be as bad as Liverpool; and so also, I fear, is Birmingham . . . To its honour, Parliament has lately decided that England shall in future be governed by popular government. I am one of those who would not wait until the people were educated before I would trust them with political power. If we had thus waited, we might have waited long for education; but now that we have given them political power, we must not wait any longer to give them education.

Source I: A twentieth-century historian considers the 1870 Education Act

By this time it was almost universally agreed that simple instruction should be brought within the reach of all who needed it. Not universal, but still dominant, was the opinion that the instruction should include the Bible and the elements of religion. No party would have dared to turn the Bible out of the schools, and no two parties could agree as to the terms upon which it should be admitted. Had the ground been unoccupied, or had it been completely occupied by the Church schools, the solution was obvious. In the one case, voluntary arrangements by all denominations; in the other, a conscience clause for all dissenters, would have satisfied most reasonable men. But sectarians are not reasonable men: and it was plain that the vast deficiencies in elementary education could now only be made good by public effort; by schools tax-aided and rate provided; and that the effort was bound either to enlarge or diminish the influence of the Church . . . Thirty years later, the controversy flared into life again over the act of 1902.

150 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) b) c) d) e)

Study source E. What is the name usually given to the Revised Code? How long was the Code in force? (3) Compare the tone and purpose of the two government reports quoted in Sources E and G. (5) How effective do you find source H as a parliamentary speech? (5) Study source I. How complete an account does it offer of the controversy over religious teaching? (5) Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which public education was a contentious issue during this period. (12)

ANSWERS

a) The phrase used to denote the Revised Code is ‘Payment by Results’, and it lasted until 1897, when it was replaced by a more generalised grant, based on the attendance figures only, provided that the inspectors were satisfied with the general standard of the school’s work. b) The tone of source E is persuasive in explaining the Code as put into law, whereas source G is at an earlier stage in the process and arguing for greater government help to endowed schools. While source E is self-explanatory, source G is looking for support to achieve reforms. The detailed explanation of the mechanism of the grant in source E contrasts with the generalised appeal of Source G. The education of women of the middle classes is the narrow focus of the source, purely on the grounds that so many of them were being deprived of husbands (by the call of Empire) or of prompt marriage (by the cost of living.) The different purposes of the two sources can be seen in their different styles. c) W.E. Forster adopts several oratorical strategies which might be expected to be effective. He makes use of specific examples which are telling and easily comprehensible – half the eligible children in Liverpool were receiving no useful education. At the same time, he uses a personal point likely to raise a laugh: the antagonism between Yorkshiremen and Lancastrians was a known stereotype, then as now. Forster also turns back upon Parliament the main cause of his insistence that education is essential, since it was Parliament which ‘lately’ (in 1867) enfranchised the urban masses. Given that one of the possible ‘fancy franchises’ of the debates of 1866–7 had been a literacy qualification, Forster reminds his fellow members that he voted for a general franchise. His argument now is that it is necessary to achieve general literacy, following the enfranchisement of working men. It is an effective speech, although this extract does not deal with the tendentious question of religious instruction, or the issue of whether the ratepayers will be happy to spend their local funds to satisfy the wishes of Parliament. d) G. M. Young provides an outline of the controversy over religious instruction. It is certainly true, as he writes, that there was impassioned argument on all sides and that the debate continued for years – not only to the 1902 Education Act but also well into the twenty-first century, with

SOURCES • 151

the requirement for ‘Christian in the main’ school assemblies in the 1990s and the enduring issue of ‘Faith Schools’. Young does not, in this extract, provide any detail of the method by which the question was resolved in the 1870 Act, or the extent to which it continued to be troublesome up to and beyond 1902. The Cowper-Temple clause of the Act provided for Christian (Anglican) religious instruction and observance, but with the right of a parent to withdraw a child from such observance. Under the acts of 1870, 1885 and 1891, the Cowper-Temple compromise proved acceptable. But, as Young suggests, Balfour’s Act of 1902 renewed the dispute. In order to extend the provision of ‘secondary’ education, it became necessary to use public funds to assist Church of England schools, to the fury of the Non-Conformist community. Many towns can provide examples of this controversy. Thus G.M. Young offers an outline account which can be verified by examination of local details. e) These sources reveal the key issues of debate over education in this period. The basic principle, that governments should be involved in the provision of education, had been established in the 1830s with the first grants to existing schools and with the insistence that factory children should receive some schooling. The issues that remained were, it could be argued, more questions of detail than principle: What were the functions of education? How much should the taxpayer and ratepayer contribute? What level of compulsion should there be? Up to 1862, the system adopted had been to support the existing schools of the National and the British Societies. As Lowe made clear in source E, there was an anxiety that money was being wasted on inadequate teaching. (Charles Dickens was one of several authors who castigated teachers, for example Bradley Headstone in Our Mutual Friend and Mr M’Choakumchild in Hard Times.) But the Revised Code itself was contentious, with accusations that teachers focused only on those who needed to be brought ‘up to Standard’, and only taught what the inspectors would look for. The complete removal of this method of payment by results in 1896 indicates that it was not found to be effective. Varying and changing attempts to demonstrate ‘a certain degree of efficiency’, as source F approvingly puts it, have continued ever since. Source G is a reminder of another controversy: What should education be ‘for’? For the wealthy classes, who were educated privately, education was a kind of social polish, both for boys destined to govern at home or abroad, or to supervise estates or industries actually run by others, and for girls whose future lay in adorning a husband’s home. For most trades and skills, formal or informal apprenticeship was the way to rise from assisting the factory- or estate-manager to being the manager. But what did the poorer classes or, as in source G, women needing to support themselves, require to learn? Source H shows the extension of his debate to the mass of the population. They needed to read in order to be informed: to understand the increasing complexities of a machine age, and to become moral beings by an understanding of the Bible. In Europe, states were educating all their children and this was recognised as a reason for the economic advances of, for instance, Prussia (Germany). Most contentious of all, of course, was the issue raised in source I, the question of what, if anything, should be done about religion. But there were other anxieties not touched upon by these sources. During the 1880s, the growing determination of the trade union movement caused some to ask whether education might lead to revolution; and, as source E makes clear, the question of how much money should be spent on education, and at what level of government, was a serious issue. The balance between personal and public funding was tipped decisively in 1891 by the decision

152 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

that education should be provided completely free, by the ratepayers. But secondary education was to remain a costly privilege until half way through the twentieth century, although the 1902 act made it available to a highly selected few. And while a teacher’s or a nurse’s training could be obtained and some technical institutions were subsidised, for most of the population higher education was unattainable until the introduction of ‘state scholarships’ in the 1930s. As these sources indicate, state provision of education began as a matter of controversy; and experience suggests that, even with the principle established for almost two hundred years, the details of content and delivery will continue to be contentious.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE E a) b) c)

Explain in your own words the mechanism by which the government proposed to extend and target the money provided for education. (5) What education was available to the mass of the population before the establishment of the Revised Code? (7) Discuss the stages by which ‘enormously increased efficiency’ was achieved in education in the 40 years following the establishment of the Revised Code. (18)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, OR FOR AQA, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a)

b) c) d)

Study source I. What solution was found in the 1870 and subsequent Education acts to the problem of religious education in publicly funded schools? How complete a summary does the newspaper report source F offer of the purpose of the Revised Code? Contrast the reasons offered by sources G and H in favour extending the scope of public education. ‘The development of education in the nineteenth century was flawed because of the historic foundations on which it had to be based.’ Discuss this view.

(10) (25) (25)

(60)

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 153

Part 4: Historical skills 1. Constructing a ‘spider chart’ to demonstrate how reforms are linked to one another Many students find the construction of spider charts a helpful way to revise and to plan essay answers. This exercise gives you the opportunity to try one. Begin with any reform you choose by writing it into the middle of a sheet of paper. Now add: leading into it, the issues and other reforms which led to it; leading from it, the further reforms to which it led and which it influenced. You may decide to include other events which also encouraged reform. An example of part of such a chart is shown below. Figure 4.4 Historical skills exercise: incomplete spider chart

1872 Adulteration of Food Act

Cholera epidemics

Industrialisation

Urbanisation

Education grants

Enclosure Acts

1875 Sale of Food and Drugs Act

1848 Public Health Act

1876 Rivers Pollution Act

Allotments Act 1892

Artisans’ Dwellings Act 1875

Influence of Philanthropists

References for Chapter 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Christopher Lawrence, Medicine in the Making of Modern Britain 1700–1920, Routledge, London, 1994 Margaret Llewelyn Davies (ed.), Maternity, Letters from Working Women, 1915, republished Virago, London, 1984, pp. 194–5 Quoted in Edward Royle, Radical Politics 1790–1900, Religion and Unbelief, Longman, London, 1971, p. 103 Norman Longmate, Alive and Well, Penguin, London, 1970, p. 94 W.S. Gilbert, HMS Pinafore, Act 2

154 • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL POLICY, 1846–1919

Sources A. Quoted in Peter Murray, Poverty and Welfare 1830–1914, Hodder & Stoughton, London, pp. 49–50 B. Can be found at www.poetscorner.com C. Peter Murray, Poverty and Welfare 1830–1914, Hodder & Stoughton, London, p. 50 D. E.H.H. Green (ed.), An Age of Transition, British Politics 1880–1914, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1997, p. 10 E. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 897–8 F. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 909 G. G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 910 H. Hansard 3/CXCIX/440–466 I. G.M. Young, Portrait of an Age: Victorian England, Oxford Paperbacks, London, 1963

Chapter 5

Gladstone and Disraeli at Home and Abroad, 1868–94

156 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

This chapter focuses on the political and administrative reforms, and the foreign policies, of the years dominated by the two personalities of Gladstone and Disraeli. The substantial programme of social and public health reforms carried through in these years is the subject of Chapter 4, and the issue of Ireland, the solving of which became Gladstone’s overriding ‘mission’, is discussed in Chapter 6. Thus it will be useful, when you have read the relevant parts of those two chapters, to consider the achievements of each of the ministries, and indeed of these prime ministers, and possibly create a unified time line.

Historical background

3.

Political and administrative reforms 1868–74 Foreign affairs 1868–74 Political and administrative reforms 1874–80 Foreign affairs 1874–80 Political and administrative reforms 1880–85 Foreign affairs 1880–85 Changes in ministry 1885–6 Political and administrative reforms 1886–92 Foreign affairs 1886–92 Political and administrative reforms 1892–4 Foreign affairs 1892–4

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Sources 1. 2.

1. 2.

Parliamentary reform Defence

Gladstone and Disraeli compared Issues in Foreign Policy

Historical skills 1. 2.

Essays

Local government and administration Disraeli and Gladstone compared The Balkans South Africa Egypt and the Sudan The Empire

A formal debate about the Secret Ballot Act Research seminar: The British Empire

GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94 • 157

Chronology 1868 1869–74 1871 1870–1 1871 1871 1872 1872 1873–4 1874 1875 1876 1878 1879 1879 1880 1881 1881 1881 1881 1884–5 1884–5 1884–5 1885–6 1886 1887–9 1887 1888 1892 1894

Gladstone and Liberals into power Cardwell’s Army Reforms London Conference to settle Black Sea Clauses Civil Service Reforms Trade Union Act Criminal Law Amendment Act Secret Ballot Act Alabama Arbitration Ashanti War Disraeli and Conservatives into power Purchase of Suez Canal shares Royal Titles Act Balkan Crisis: Congress of Berlin First Afghan War Zulu War Gladstone and the Liberals into power Second Afghan War First Boer War Death of Disraeli: Lord Salisbury Leader of the Opposition Arabi Pasha’s rebellion: British take-over of Egypt Third Reform Act and Redistribution of Seats Act Siege of Khartoum and death of General Gordon Congress in Berlin about annexation of lands in Africa Ministerial changes: Conservative, then Liberal ministries Salisbury and Conservatives in power Annexations in East and South Africa Treaties signed with Italy and Austria-Hungary County Councils Act Gladstone and Liberals in power Harcourt’s Death Duties Act

158 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Part 1: Historical background Political and administrative reforms 1868–74 Gladstone had become leader of the Liberals in opposition in 1867 and within a year was prime minister. The results of the general election were interesting: the Liberals had a majority of 116, notably in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and among newly enfranchised voters in the large English boroughs. These were unstable foundations on which to rely, however, since neither Ireland nor the great industrial towns would continue to vote Liberal when more radical alternatives appeared. It was significant that in Lancashire the Conservatives won many seats, including Gladstone’s own. This was not the only shock for the Liberals: in London, the wealthy retailer W.H. Smith took the Westminster seat from the political philosopher John Stuart Mill. Gladstone soon found another seat, however, and formed a government which lasted the full term, achieving a major programme of useful legislation. He proved capable of bringing together the different and often antagonistic branches of the Liberal Party: aristocratic Whigs, who were landowners and therefore inclined towards agricultural protection; commercial and industrial middle classes, in favour of free trade and cheap food; artisans, shopkeepers and trade unionists, whose supporters had recently been enfranchised. Gladstone was to hold his party together until the question of Ireland split it apart. Among the reforms produced by this government were a number of attempts to improve the system of administration, although the methods that Gladstone used were not particularly modern. An Order in Council of 1870 was used to make admission to the civil service subject to competitive examination. Similarly, the end of the purchase of commissions in the armed forces was achieved, not by legislation, but by ending the eighteenth-century Order in Council which had legalised it. As the Pall Mall Gazette said, ‘a strictly conscientious man like Mr Gladstone does things from which a less conscientious man would shrink.’1 Other aspects of the administration of the army were reformed through a series of changes introduced by Edward Cardwell, the secretary of state for war. To ensure that education at the highest level was available on merit, the 1871 Universities Act did away with the requirement to be a member of the Church of England for almost all degrees and positions within the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The only other university in England, the University of London, had been established without these limitations. Gladstone knew that his civil service reforms would require a wide pool of well educated people from which to draw. The most important act of Gladstone’s first ministry was the 1872 Secret Ballot Act, which was introduced for all sorts of reasons. A cynic might say that the enormous Conservative vote in Lancashire led the Liberals to wonder if the newly enfranchised workers there had actually been allowed to vote freely; certainly in the countryside and the mining communities the fear of eviction was almost as great as the fear of unemployment. The 1868 election had seen well publicised examples of intimidation and corruption, although some employers had put up notices promising that the vote cast by a worker would not affect his future employment. But it is also true that the large numbers now enfranchised made personal open voting at the hustings cumbersome and likely to lead to disorder. A secret written ballot would mean that there was no need to assemble large crowds. Opposition to the reform came from those who thought there was something under-

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 159 Figure 5.1 The ‘Vote Auction’, a satirical cartoon on the prevalence of bribery in British parliamentary elections, Punch, 1853

hand and furtive about hiding your vote and from those who argued that the voters in some way represented the non-voters and so should be prepared to show how they had voted, in much the same way that MPs do not have a secret vote in the House of Commons. Although a bill failed in 1871, the coming of secret voting was inevitable and the act was passed the following year. The method was the one which has been used ever since: each voter made a secret mark on a ‘ballot’, or voting paper, and then placed the paper in a sealed box. Anyone who was illiterate, or blind, had their paper marked by an election official. The boxes were opened and the ballots counted in the presence of the candidates, or their agents. The system was tested in a by-election in 1872, and the 1874 general election saw the secret ballot working without a hitch. There was, inevitably, still some corruption, which Gladstone was to address in his next ministry. Local government was also reformed along the lines already established by earlier reforms. In 1872, as we have seen in Chapter 3, a new Public Health Act ordered the appointment of a medical officer of health in each area and set minimum standards for water supplies. Regulations of the kind codified in the 1875 Public Health Act were imposed upon the local authorities by the centre. For example, in 1871, the last of a long series of laws finally made smallpox vaccination compulsory across the nation, and it was the local medical officer of health who had to enforce this. Similarly, under the1872 Mines Act, the inspectors could call upon the local health authorities to assist them in enforcing earlier legislation. Central governments had recognised that they would have difficulty in imposing such expensive policies on the ratepayers, and thus central

160 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94 Figure 5.2 William Ewart Gladstone (1809–98), prime minister. Cartoon published in Vanity Fair, 1869

instructions came with grant-in-aid from the centre. And, of course, with grant-in-aid came central inspection and supervision. At the centre, in 1871, the Local Government Board took over the local government work of various central agencies: the Home Office, the Privy Council Office and the Poor Law Board among others. The new board was responsible for auditing and reporting the government work done by local authorities. At the same time, the judicial system attracted the reforming eye of Gladstone. An act of 1873 at first removed the House of Lords from its place as the final court of appeal, but a subsequent law was to replace it, by common consent, in 1876. Other reforms, streamlining the appeals system, were permanent. The trade union movement also benefited from judicial reforms. The 1871 Trades Disputes Act finally gave trade unions a legal entity, enabling them to deal in the law courts, and at the same time the Criminal Law Amendment Act, by stating that it was legal for a group of men to do what it was legal for a single man to do, made peaceful picketing lawful, thus greatly enhancing the effectiveness of strike action. Gladstone’s first ministry had begun to change the way in which public service was regarded and had attempted to increase efficiency across the whole spectrum of public administration and politics.

Foreign affairs 1868–74 Gladstone’s government of 1868–74 pursued policies categorised by Disraeli at the following election as weak. When Russia repudiated the Black Sea clauses of 1856, Gladstone took no action, other than accepting Russia’s right to have her warships in the Black Sea. His readiness to pay compensation to the USA seemed similarly spineless. The Alabama had been built in Birkenhead and equipped by British cotton interests for the rebel Southern states in the Civil War (1861–5). The Union (North) demanded compensation, and not only did Gladstone agree to go to international arbitration, but he also accepted that Britain should pay for the damage done by the ship. Britain paid over £15 million.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 161

Britain stood aside while Bismarck and Prussia organised the unification of Germany. When Prussia attacked France in 1870, Gladstone merely demanded and got a commitment from both sides to maintain Belgian neutrality. It would have taken considerable hindsight, particularly with a proGerman queen and traditional anti-French public opinion, to realise that the unification of Germany would be the greatest threat to European peace since Napoleon. In addition, Britain’s forces were not well suited to intervene in a continental war, where naval forces could have little impact. Lord Salisbury was in a minority when he demanded, ‘Has it really come to this, that the disposal of the frontiers of France and Germany is a matter to us of the purest unconcern? Is not the crisis worth some little risk?’2 While it may seem to us that Salisbury was right and that the establishment of the Second Reich should have been a matter of concern, the use of hindsight was not available to the politicians of the time. No one at the time predicted Germany’s overwhelming victory. Although Gladstone is known for his hostility to imperial aggrandisement, he recognised the importance of placating the traders of Britain. Thus, when British traders found their privileges curtailed by native rulers in west Africa, British forces were sent to assert their rights in what became known as the Ashanti War.

Political and administrative reforms 1874–80 Despite the remarkable programme of reforms carried out by Gladstone’s government, the Liberals became increasingly unpopular. As Norman McCord comments, ‘The British electorate has never been in the habit of rewarding reforming administrations with enhanced support.’3 During 1873 the government was defeated on various points, but Disraeli declined to form a government without the approval of the people. Therefore, in 1874, Gladstone asked for a dissolution. The ensuing election was disastrous for the Liberals, who gained 245 seats to the Conservatives’ 350. A striking result, possibly an effect of the Secret Ballot Act, was that 57 MPs were returned from Ireland on a platform of demanding Home Rule. Gladstone’s pain at the result was such that he handed over the leadership of the Liberal Party to

Figure 5.3 Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield (1804–81), prime minister. Pen and ink cartoon by Harry Furniss

162 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Lord Hartington for a brief period. Disraeli now became prime minister, with a substantial mandate, although for what was unclear. In fact, this ministry produced a broad programme of social reforms, as discussed in Chapter 4. These were of great importance in the development of the ethos of the Conservative Party: Conservatives who believe in social policies, like the twentieth-century prime minister, Edward Heath, are inclined to use Disraeli as a reference point. Heath said in 1989, over a century after Disraeli’s death, ‘Social policy is not socialism. It is a cheap slur or perhaps a muddled mind to try and connect the two. We Conservatives have possessed a social policy ever since Disraeli.’4 Heath’s contemporary, Sir Ian Gilmour, another Conservative left winger, suggested that ‘Disraeli was one of the few Tory leaders who has been able to bring warmth to Conservatism, and to add to its basic common sense a degree of romance, generosity and excitement.’5 The type of reform of which Disraeli approved ‘was always ameliorative rather than distributive, of course: it involved protecting groups within the working class from the worst of the abuses which arose from the unfettered operation of a laissez-faire economy, but it stopped well short of taxing the rich to improve the conditions of the poor’.6 Other historians, such as P.R. Ghosh, suggest that Disraeli’s overriding motive was to ensure that ‘the working classes remained attached and obliged to the traditional and natural rulers of Britain, the upper classes.’7 Administrative and constitutional reforms took a smaller place in Disraeli’s concerns. His commitment to the status and strength of the Church of England had been revealed in his opposition to Gladstone’s plans for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and he now introduced the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, a measure strongly supported (and possibly even suggested) by the queen. Its aim was to enable bishops to prevent excessive ritualism, on the ‘High’ or ‘Anglo-Catholic’ wing of the party, but it proved ineffective. The queen may also have suggested the 1876 Royal Titles Act, which gave the monarch the title ‘Empress of India’, and thus transformed Britain’s world-wide holdings formally into an empire. Other significant judicial reforms include the 1876 Employers and Workmen Act, which gave working men the same legal rights that their employers enjoyed, and the 1875 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, which finally clarified the law on peaceful picketing by trade unions. Evidence that the Conservatives, like the Liberals, were intent on extending the authority of central departments came in 1876, when the Home Office was given the power to issue licences for vivisection: using animals for experimental purposes without such a licence became illegal. The following year, a Prisons Act removed the prisons from local control and established a national system. By the election of 1880, after a full and very productive term of office, the Conservatives might have expected to return to power. But it was events abroad which dominated the election and ensured the return of the Liberals.

Foreign affairs 1874–80 Disraeli’s intentions to conduct a ‘forward’ policy had been signalled by the 1867–8 Abyssinian War. When British officials were arrested by King Theodore of Ethiopia, a military expedition was sent to Addis Ababa which was successful in establishing a British influence in the country. Disraeli resumed his ‘forward’ policy when he was returned to power in 1874. In that one year, the Gold

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 163

Coast Protectorate was established, British Residents were put in place in Malaya, and Fiji was annexed to the Empire. Much more significant, however, was the purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875. The canal had been built during the 1860s and had rapidly become the essential route to India. The shares were owned by French investors in the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez and by the khedive of Egypt. Britain had not participated in building the canal but the khedive’s bankruptcy, leading him to sell his 176,602 shares, raised the spectre of a canal completely controlled by the French. Disraeli therefore borrowed – without consulting Parliament – the required £4 million from Rothschild’s bank, purchased the shares and informed Parliament afterwards. Until 1882, the French and British controlled the canal jointly. The ‘forward’ policy was also adopted in South Africa. Since the 1830s, the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa had maintained their independence in the Republic of the Transvaal. In 1877, however, Britain annexed the Transvaal, on the pretext that it was threatened by the Zulu nation under their heroic leader Cetewayo. When the predicted Zulu war broke out in 1879, British troops were humiliated at the Battle of Isandhlwana, and only managed to defeat the Zulu impis with difficulty at Ulundi. The accusation that the British high commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere, had inflamed the situation and caused the war, did not help Disraeli’s position. Even if, as Palmerston had found and Gladstone was to discover, it was difficult to control the ‘men on the spot’, governments are blamed when policies are unpopular. In Afghanistan, too, the blame could be laid at the door of the British officials on the spot, rather than the home government. Lord Lytton, viceroy of India, was concerned that the Russians might penetrate Afghanistan, which guards the Khyber Pass. In 1878, therefore, the amir was compelled by armed force to accept a British military mission in the capital, Kabul. Before the mission had time to establish itself, however, its members were massacred by order of the amir: a disaster which Gladstone was to use to fine effect in his campaign speeches for the 1880 election. Disraeli’s policies over the Balkans also aroused Gladstone’s oratory , but his actions over this difficult area were vindicated by events. The mainstay of British Middle Eastern policy had for many years been to support the Ottoman emperor, in order to neutralise the threat of Russia’s advance into the Mediterranean and straddling the route to India. Unfortunately, the sultan’s failure to reform his government and his intransigent attitude to the burgeoning nationalist movements among his Christian subjects made this a difficult policy to maintain. Risings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875 had been put down by the Turks, but not before they had inspired the Berlin Memorandum of May 1876: a demand by Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary that the sultan should introduce reforms. Disraeli’s refusal to allow Britain to sign was in keeping with the traditional policy, with Palmerston’s policy, of supporting the Ottoman Emperor against all-comers. This policy was called into question, however, by the Bulgarian Atrocities. In 1876, nationalist rebels in Bulgaria were ruthlessly brought under control by Turkish forces. These were not regular troops, most of whom were engaged in bringing the trouble in Bosnia under control. The repression of the Bulgarian Nationalists was done by Bashi Bazouks, irregular paramilitaries used by the sultan to supplement his regular troops. Gladstone led the condemnation of the violence and brutality of the Turkish forces, and British sympathies were shown in collections supporting the Bulgarians, articles in the newspapers, and speeches and sermons condemning the Turkish refusal to introduce reforms. Disraeli even found himself opposed by his foreign secretary, the 15th earl of Derby, son of his former patron. Public opinion swung in Disraeli’s favour when the Russians attacked Turkey. The gallant defence of Plevna by the Turks revived all the normal anti-Russian

164 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94 Figure 5.4 Map of the Balkans before 1878

RUSSIA

GERMANY

FRANCE

AUSTRIA–HUNGARY ROMANIA

ITALY

TURKEY

GREECE

Figure 5.5 Map of the Balkans according to the Treaty of San Stephano, 1878 RUSSIA

GERMANY

FRANCE

AUSTRIA–HUNGARY BOSNIA SERBIA

ROMANIA

BULGARIA MONTENEGRO GREECE

TURKEY

ITALY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 165 Figure 5.6 Map of the Balkans after the Congress of Berlin, 1878 RUSSIA

FRANCE

GERMANY

AUSTRIA–HUNGARY SERBIA BOSNIA ITALY MONTENEGRO

ROMANIA

RIA LGA BU MELIA E. RU TURKEY

feeling, and the music halls resounded with the song from which the word jingoism was coined. Only the earl of Derby rejected Disraeli’s policy of sending a fleet to Constantinople and summoning Indian troops to Malta; his resignation brought Lord Salisbury to the Foreign Office. As Disraeli was well aware, summoning Indian troops bypassed the constitutional requirement to consult with Parliament before sending British troops abroad. The Treaty of San Stephano (March 1878), as agreed by the Turks and the Russians, was unacceptable to Britain, since it would have weakened Turkey and strengthened Russia to an unacceptable degree. Fortunately Germany and Austria-Hungary were similarly alarmed at Russia’s strength and so the Congress of Berlin (August 1878) renegotiated the borders without any need for recourse to war, in Disraeli’s words, bringing ‘peace with honour’. Turkey’s foothold in Europe was restored by Russia yielding some of its newly gained territory; Russian domination of the greater Bulgaria of San Stephano was broken up, and Romania was strengthened along the Danube as a buffer against Russia. Serbia’s establishment as a new state but without any coastline would be significant for the future. Britain’s guarantee of the settlement was rewarded by the grant of Cyprus, giving the British navy a base in the eastern Mediterranean to match Malta in the central Mediterranean and Gibraltar in the west. For the moment, the Balkans were calm, the Ottoman Empire had been preserved and the threat of Russia was averted. The ‘always cynical Bismarck’8 was soon willing to include Russia in the Dreikaiserbund of 1881, and in 1887 to recognise Russia’s claims to influence in Bulgaria. No one could have predicted that Austria-Hungary’s occupation of Bosnia would lead to the ruin of empires in the summer of 1914.

166 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Historians differ in their views about the extent to which Disraeli followed a deliberately proactive policy. Certainly, in his speech at the Crystal Palace in 1874 he had declared, ‘[the British people] are proud of belonging to an imperial country and are resolved to maintain, if they can, their Empire.’9 Buckle, as long ago as 1920, suggested that Disraeli, like Palmerston, was building the imperial policy which Britain was to pursue well into the twentieth century.10 Like Palmerston, he also knew that the safety of India was paramount and that preserving the Ottoman Empire was therefore essential. It is possible to claim that almost all Disraeli’s policies were, like the purchase of the Suez Canal shares, reactive and that he was concerned with holding onto existing territory rather than searching for excuses for new annexations. We may conclude this section by considering John Lowe’s perceptive summary: ‘Disraeli was no idealist. He was an opportunist, pursuing whatever policy seemed expedient at the time, with an eye to prestige successes – just like a “foreigner”, as Derby alleged in snobbish fashion. Showmanship came naturally to him . . . but Disraeli grasped the important fact that self-assertion was a necessary attribute for a nation in the Bismarckian era.’11

Political and administrative reforms 1880–5 Disraeli’s increasing concentration on foreign affairs and the necessary increases in taxation, coming at a time of agricultural depression, made the Conservatives progressively unpopular. Having won two by-elections in London and Liverpool, however, Disraeli decided to ask for an election in 1880, perhaps hoping to see his party firmly established once more before his increasing ill health forced his retirement. The 1874 results were reversed, with the Liberals winning 353 seats and the Conservatives only 238 (and the Irish Home Rulers 61). Notable was the reduction in uncontested seats, indicating a greater discontent with the Conservatives than Disraeli had expected. Disraeli was so shocked that he resigned in April before the new Parliament met, which was not customary. The queen was reluctant to accept Gladstone and first sent for Lord Hartington, but Gladstone was in fact the only possible leader. Gladstone’s position was subsequently strengthened by Disraeli’s death in 1881, not least because he had failed to identify a successor. Lord Salisbury was in the House of Lords, but in the Commons, Sir Stafford Northcote was more of an administrator than a political leader, having spearheaded the reforms in the civil service. Thus the Liberals faced a less determined opposition than in the past and, in addition to a programme of social reforms, produced some far-reaching administrative and constitutional measures. Reforms were made to the way in which elections were run. Although the Secret Ballot Act had reduced the amount of corruption at elections, there were still problems, and Gladstone’s ministry attempted to deal with this. In 1883, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act set a maximum level for election expenditure and, probably more important, a maximum number of people who could be employed in election work, since providing ‘jobs’ had been a common way of procuring votes. Within the House of Commons, Gladstone was less able to make changes. The 1880 election also saw the atheist Charles Bradlaugh elected MP for Northampton, but an attempt to introduce a non-religious affirmation in place of the parliamentary oath of loyalty was rejected by a crossparty majority on several occasions and failed. As the twenty-first century gets under way, the issue regarding the oath of loyalty, though no longer a religious one, remains contentious. Gladstone’s most important constitutional reforms were the third Reform Act and the Redistribution Act of 1884–5. These were the result of a cross-party agreement, known as the

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 167

Arlington Street Compact, the first time that party leaders had ever discussed and agreed a measure before it came before Parliament. Lord Salisbury confirmed that the Franchise Reform Act would pass smoothly through the Lords, on condition that significant redistribution was also enacted to safeguard the Conservatives’ ‘heartlands’ in the counties. The terms of the two acts make clear that controversy had been avoided through providing each party with what it wanted. The county franchise was now made the same as that of the towns under the 1867 Act, but to the householders, 84 per cent of the electorate, and the £10 lodgers were now added £10 occupants of shops and offices, which in fact extended the incidence of plural voting. The electorate now totalled about 6 million, with two out of every three adult men having the vote. The 1885 Redistribution Act involved even greater change: the counties were divided into single-member constituencies; London was turned into 55 single-member constituencies, and other large boroughs were treated in a similar way; 79 smaller boroughs were reduced from two members to one. On the whole, this was beneficial to the Conservatives, since the suburbs could be separated from the working-class areas and therefore return Conservative members. In Ireland, the effect was to increase radically the number of Home Rule MPs who were elected. Other significant, though undramatic reforms, marked the 1880–5 ministry. The 1882 Married Women’s Property Act enabled women to continue to own property after their marriage (previously it had become the possession of the husband at the altar, and several unpleasant murder cases had been heavily publicised). The Bankruptcy Act and the Patent Act of the same year gave the Board of Trade increased regulating powers to control enterprise. This was a ministry of sound and important reforms at home, fulfilling the commitments of the election campaign. Abroad, however, Gladstone’s ministry was less able to live up to the promises made.

Foreign affairs 1880–5 Gladstone’s key belief was that the rule of law should apply to international affairs. He was also concerned to spend as little of the nation’s revenue abroad as possible, while ensuring that free trade was maintained, since it was so much to Britain’s advantage. His six principles, enunciated during the 1880 Midlothian election campaign, encapsulated four main points: to preserve the blessings of peace; to restrain selfish national aims by working with other powers in the ‘Concert of Europe’; to acknowledge the equal rights of all nations, while encouraging the spread of freedom, and to avoid needless and entangling foreign engagements. Within his own party there were deep divisions on how foreign policy should be conducted. The traditional Whigs wanted the strong defence of Britain’s interests; the Liberals of the moral high ground wanted self-determination for small nations in Europe, with Britain being the moral leadership, while on the left of the party, the Radicals, also known as Cobdenites, Brightists or the Manchester School, were against all foreign adventures which they condemned as interventionist, militaristic and expensive. Their hostility to secret diplomacy was based on the conviction that free trade alone could make the world a happy place. Faced with these contradictions within his own party, Gladstone simply ensured, as often as possible, Britain’s non-involvement. When the Liberals won the 1880 election with a clear majority, however, Gladstone found himself forced to deal with some issues for which he had criticised Disraeli in the campaign: the British

168 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

navy was involved in a joint allied action in the Adriatic to force the sultan to transfer land to Montenegro and Greece as agreed in 1878. Gladstone was compelled to retain Cyprus, whose acquisition he had fiercely condemned, since he was unable to persuade the sultan to cede it to Greece. British forces left Afghanistan, but only in exchange for firm guarantees concerning the British status of the Khyber Pass. Gladstone in opposition had made his views on South Africa known: he opposed the annexation of the Transvaal. But when in power he did not immediately return it and the Boers, under Kruger, became impatient. The war which resulted was humiliating for Britain, which lost a battle at Majuba Hill, and at the Convention of Pretoria 1881, the Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were given virtual independence, with Britain controlling only their foreign policy. Bismarck took advantage of Britain’s revealed weakness, by demanding and obtaining protectorates over Togo, Cameroon, German East Africa and South West Africa, and at a Congress in Berlin, guidelines were laid down for the annexation of territory in Africa. The 1884–5 guidelines were concerned with informing other European countries, rather than with any concern for the native peoples. The annexation of Bechuanaland, to the north of Cape Colony, by Cecil Rhodes was done under the new guidelines. Further north, Gladstone found himself presiding over the taking of more African territory, against his stated principles. The purchase of the Suez Canal shares had meant that British commercial interests were strong in Egypt. These interests were threatened by the nationalist rising of Arabi Pasha, in which about 50 Europeans were killed. Gladstone had hoped that the ‘Concert of Europe’ would deal with the problem, but in June 1882 a British naval force was sent to support the khedive, despite John Bright’s resignation from the cabinet over the issue. The joint Anglo-French control was ended when the French withdrew their support and following the defeat of Arabi Pasha at Tel-el-Kebir, Egypt effectively became a British colony, with the appointment of a consul general to ‘advise’ the khedive. This Western influence sparked trouble in the Sudan, to the south of Egypt. The Mahdi preached holy war, or Jihad, and threatened to destroy all the Westerners in the area. Gladstone’s response was to order the garrisons along the Nile to withdraw into Egypt and leave the Mahdi to his own devices. Unfortunately General Charles Gordon did not agree and held the city of Khartoum against the Mahdi’s army. Gladstone was reluctant to send a relieving force to rescue a general who had so blatantly disobeyed orders; when public opinion finally forced him to do so, General Kitchener’s expeditionary force arrived to find Gordon dead, thus labelling Gladstone a murderer. In one final example reflecting the influence of Disraeli’s policies, Gladstone ordered British troops to push Russian forces away from the Afghan border, which they successfully achieved at Pendjeh in 1885. Thus Gladstone’s policies can be seen to be reactive rather than a sober following of his stated principles. When he resigned in June 1885, his unpopular foreign policies were undoubtedly one reason, and Bismarck was known to have designated Gladstone as the most incompetent minister in foreign policy since Lord North, the man who notoriously ‘lost America’ in the 1770s.

Changes in ministry 1885–6 ‘From the vantage point of 1885, Disraeli’s election in 1874 looked more like a temporary blip than a new dawn for the party.’12 By the end of the next year, however, it was the Liberals who

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 169 Figure 5.7 Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquis of Salisbury (1830–1903), prime minister. Cartoon by Sir Francis Carruthers Gould (‘F.C.G.’). You may like to compare this cartoon with the portrait on p. 258

were divided and demoralised, and the Conservatives were the dominant party. In the 1885 election, the Irish Nationalists played a key role. Enfranchised by the new Electoral Reform Act, the tenant farmers of Ireland returned 85 MPs, sufficient to enable the Conservatives to come to power for as long as Parnell believed they would make concessions. When the Irish MPs changed sides, as you will see in Chapter 6, Gladstone felt he had no choice but to introduce a Home Rule Bill. Lord Salisbury depicted the question as one of imperial pride and loyalty to the crown, as well as defence of the established Church of England against the threat of Catholicism, and thus was able to capitalise on the split in the Liberal Party. At the 1886 election, Salisbury agreed that Conservatives would not contest constituencies where Liberal Unionists – Liberals in favour of keeping the Union with Ireland – were standing. The outcome was a striking one: the Liberals won 191 seats, the Liberal Unionists 78 and the Conservatives 316, including 174 counties and 164 English boroughs, with 47 of the London seats returning Conservative MPs. From now until 1905 the Conservatives would dominate government. The Liberal Unionists did not formally unite with them until 1912, but voted with them on almost every occasion. Thus, after a brief few months in power in 1885, Salisbury was able to form an enduring ministry. Indeed, aside from one brief and insubstantial Liberal Ministry, the Conservatives were to remain in power for 20 years.

Political and administrative reforms 1886–92 The main administrative achievement of Salisbury’s government was the local government reform embodied in the 1888 County Councils Act (1889 for the act which covered Scotland). This act provided a clearer structure for the counties, along the lines of the powers enjoyed by the boroughs since the 1830s. These Conservative years also saw the beginnings of the Labour Party, or at least of the groups which were to form the Party. The Social Democratic Federation (SDF), a small Marxist group,

170 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

had put up a few candidates at the election of 1886, but had made no impact on the electorate. On 13 November 1887 they attempted to hold a rally in Trafalgar Square, which was so forcibly broken up by the police that it became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. The SDF had no desire to work with the trade unions, and yet it was the union movement which was working most directly for working-class representation. In 1886, the Trades Union Congress established the Labour Electoral Association, with a view to moving the struggle into Parliament. The second half of the 1880s saw the trade union movement enormously strengthened by several mass strikes of unskilled workers. The first struggle took place in East London, where young women worked in dangerous conditions in the Bryant and May match factory. The open vats of phosphorus, into which matches were dipped by hand, gave off fumes which led to necrosis of the bones, known as ‘phossy jaw’. Since the girls were unskilled, they could easily be replaced and so did not protest. In 1887, however, the Fabian Annie Besant inspired them to organise themselves into a union, and the ensuing strike achieved both substantial publicity and improved conditions. In spring 1889, the gas workers at the great East London works at Beckton (see p. 134 Chapter 4), led by one of the stokers, Will Thorne, formed the Gasworkers’ Union and demanded and gained an eight-hour day. The third strike to erupt in East London was a more lengthy, more complex and more dramatic one. The London docks were the essential heart of supply for the capital: food, animal fodder, industrial components and goods came in and many of Britain’s exports left from London. The docks were worked by a range of men; skilled dockers and stevedores were the best paid, but the docks and the ship owners also employed large numbers of unskilled men as porters and carriers. These were employed as casual labour, arriving each day with no guarantee of even an hour or two of work. In 1889, led by Ben Tillett (a member of the SDF) all the dockers went on strike, demanding a minimum of six pence (6d) an hour and at least four hours’ work at a time. The dock owners and the ship owners refused to negotiate, and the strike might have collapsed had it not been for support from unexpected quarters (£30,000 came from the Australian trade union movement; Cardinal Manning offered to negotiate). Public support was drawn in by processions through the city, including dockers’ wives, holding fish heads and mildewed bread to show what their diet was. When the employers gave in and awarded the ‘dockers’ tanner’, the six pence they had demanded, together with eight pence (8d) per hour for work at unsocial hours, it was thought that ‘new unionism’ had arrived for good. But the employers were alarmed, and over the next months the union leaders and many of their followers were expelled from the docks with no protest. Any attempts to enforce a ‘closed shop’ failed dismally, and thus, when the economy went into depression in the early 1890s, unskilled union men lost their jobs and gave up their union memberships too. On the other hand, the Trades Union Congress was forced to notice the mass of the workers who had so suddenly shown their potential strength. The Conservative government had, of course, stood back from these developments; they could hardly have been expected to recognise the political threat posed by these eruptions of workplace anger.

Foreign affairs 1886–92 Salisbury’s interest in foreign policy was such that he took the post of foreign secretary himself for much of his ministry. Much of what the ministry did built upon foundations laid earlier. In 1886, Myanmar (then called Burma) was annexed, for the traditional reason that otherwise the French might seize it and threaten India. France, active in Vietnam (then Indo-China), had shown

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 171

no sign of wanting still more territory, but the Conservatives preferred to be sure. The same anxiety about French aggrandisement could be seen in one of the first European agreements which Britain made: a treaty with Italy to regulate naval presences in the Mediterranean. The same year, 1887, saw an agreement with both Italy and Austria-Hungary, which overrode Russian protests to recognise Bulgaria’s seizure of Eastern Rumelia. Meanwhile, annexations in Africa continued, with Matabeleland annexed in 1889 and renamed Rhodesia. Initially a piece of private enterprise by Cecil Rhodes, the government became involved when King Lobegula’s people resisted the British take-over and troops were sent in to enforce the ‘sale’ of the land. Rhodes’ South Africa Company had been emulated by the formation of the British East Africa Company in 1888. Germany recognised the company’s claims to land around Uganda and Kenya, in exchange for the small North Sea island of Heligoland, insignificant except, perhaps, for a nation contemplating war against Britain at some stage in the near future and therefore needing naval bases in suitable places. Salisbury had spoken of the ‘splendid isolation’ of Britain, secure in her own imperial solitude. But the naked annexations of the ministry across Africa and the Far East were to lead to difficulties in the next century, as were the treaties which began to be constructed within Europe. Salisbury was confident, however, as the election fell due in 1892, that the electorate would approve his actions, both at home and abroad.

Political and administrative reforms 1892–4 At the July 1892 election, the Liberals won 272 seats to the Conservatives’ 268. At first Salisbury hoped to remain in power, supported as he was by 46 Members returned as Liberal Unionists, but the 81 Irish Nationalists ensured that his government was defeated in August. The 82-yearold Gladstone took over with only one item on his agenda, that of a second attempt at Home Rule for Ireland. When the bill was overwhelmingly rejected in the House of Lords (by 419 votes to 41), Gladstone hoped to hold a general election on the single issue of Home Rule, but his cabinet refused and he took the opportunity to resign when the issue of increased naval spending arose. Harcourt, the chancellor of the exchequer, had been expected to take over the ministry, but Queen Victoria’s choice was Lord Rosebery. Hardly a typical Liberal, he was an extremely wealthy man, unique in British history for having watched two of his horses win the Derby while he was prime minister. A new Local Government Act in 1894 was one of only a few significant reforms. As well as providing new tiers of local government, with Urban District, Rural District and Parish Councils, the act allowed women who qualified for the franchise to vote in local elections and to sit on local councils. The 1894 budget was controversial, given that it was an axiom of all Liberals that the raising and increasing of taxes was immoral, since taxation infringed personal liberty and was an assault on private property. The budget added one penny to income tax, and placed a tax on all alcoholic drinks, including beer. In addition, the very largest estates were subject to taxation on the death of each holder. The introduction of Death Duties in 1894 has been seen as marking the beginning of an assault on unearned, or inherited, wealth which was to reach its climax with Lloyd George’s contentious 1909 Budget, about which you will read in Chapter 8. Harcourt’s concept was that the value of estates should be subject to taxation as they changed hands on death, and this was an easy tax to assess and collect, since the documents of inheritance

172 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Figure 5.8 Map showing the extent of the British Empire in 1902. This was printed in the Illustrated London News special issue for the coronation of Edward VII

ESSAYS • 173

were readily available. It was unpopular, but the growing amount of business wealth as opposed to landed wealth in the House of Commons ensured its passage into law. The ministry as a whole could not survive the divisions within the Liberal Party and, in 1894, Rosebery resigned.

Foreign affairs 1892–4 Gladstone’s obsessive preoccupation with Ireland meant that foreign policy was left very much in the hands of his foreign secretary, Lord Rosebery. Rosebery was convinced of the need to increase naval expenditure, and he was able to carry the party with him in the face of resistance from Gladstone and the more traditional Liberals. It was over this issue, rather than Ireland, that Gladstone resigned in 1894, leaving Rosebery to become prime minister in his place. Both as foreign secretary and as prime minister, Rosebery was preoccupied with the security of Egypt, now so crucial in safeguarding the route to India. In 1893, the British military force in Egypt was strengthened to ensure that the Suez Canal remained safe and always accessible. It was recognised, however, that the general economic wellbeing of Egypt was crucial if the canal was to be safeguarded from Egyptian rebellion, and the whole agricultural economy of Egypt was dependent on the River Nile. The fear that some foreign power might divert or in some way damage the Nile’s water supply led to the establishment of a British Protectorate over Uganda, many miles to the south where the River Nile flows out of a huge lake, to be named ‘Lake Victoria’ by its European discoverer, Murchison. The Liberals, with or without Gladstone, seemed fated to increase the size of the Empire about which they had such serious doubts. Historians such as Colin Matthew13 and C.C. Eldridge14 have discussed in some depth the various interpretations which may be put upon Gladstone’s conduct of foreign policy, but it seems reasonable to suggest that he wanted to maintain Britain’s imperial status as economically as possible. Gladstone’s remarkable period at the forefront of British politics dwindled to an ignominious conclusion through his conviction that he must do what was right in Ireland; but during the years in which he alternated in office with Disraeli and Salisbury, a great deal of vital and far-reaching reform had been achieved, by both parties, while at the same time, the pattern of British foreign and imperial policy had effectively been set for the next half century.

Part 2: Essays 1 – domestic affairs Some of these essays have a title in two parts. Of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. Parliamentary Reform a) b)

What were the key changes achieved by the Reform and Redistribution Acts of 1884–5? Did Britain become a democracy during this period?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

174 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

(a) The essential change achieved by the 1884–5 Parliamentary reform legislation was that it enfranchised almost all adult men in Britain. The franchise provided for the boroughs in 1867 was extended to the shires, together with an additional provision across the country, that the occupants of offices or retail premises worth £10 or more a year if rented should also vote. Thus the only adult men left without a vote were sons still living in the parental home and domestic servants who lived in their employers’ premises. Over 60 per cent of adult men now had the vote, a total of over 6 million voters. The following year, the Redistribution Act radically altered the political landscape of Britain by effectively ending the two-member constituencies which had existed for as long as Parliament. The Conservatives had agreed to the Reform Act on condition that the Redistribution Act was also passed. By its terms, the counties were divided into single-member constituencies. This was a major change. Until 1885, counties, large or small, had returned two MPs each, although the other Reform Acts of the century had tried to address this obvious injustice by providing a third MP for some of the more populous counties. Now, the constituencies were established according to population. Boroughs had also traditionally returned two MPs each, although earlier Reform Acts had tinkered with this inequity too, disenfranchising some of the most ‘rotten’ boroughs and giving additional seats to crowded towns. Now most of the smaller boroughs had their representation reduced from two MPs to one: a total of 79 boroughs were treated in this way. Larger boroughs were broken up into single-member constituencies. London was divided into 55 seats, each represented by a single MP. Although this was a Liberal Reform, it benefited the Conservatives, since the areas occupied by the workers enfranchised in 1867 could be separated from the more affluent suburbs, and thus the number of Conservative MPs representing areas of towns might be expected to increase. In the rural areas, this was less of an issue because the loyalty of voters to their landlords and employers could be more closely monitored. Another effect of the Redistribution Act, which had not been predicted, was also damaging to the Liberals: for as long as urban constituencies had returned two MPs, the Liberals had successfully put up pairs of candidates, who represented different wings of the Party; thus a Radical, or even working-class, MP would be elected alongside a representative of the more traditional Whig wing of the Party. Now, in a single-seat constituency, the Liberals had to choose more carefully. A middle-class businessman of the Whig tendency might be indistinguishable from the Conservative candidate. On the other hand, a Radical might be less reliable once returned to Parliament. And, of course, as the trade unions began to support candidates, and when the Labour Party came into existence, these urban constituencies might be likely to return working men rather than Liberals. b) Britain was certainly not a democracy before the passing of the 1867 and 1884 Parliamentary Reform Acts. But nor was there democratic rule, as we should understand it today, after these two laws were passed. Extensive though these acts were, they still did not enfranchise every adult man. The residence qualification disenfranchised men who would otherwise have qualified: migrant workers, who travelled from home to where there was work to be had, would find themselves unable to vote; paupers – people in receipt of poor relief – were not permitted to vote, although in time legislation exempted those in Poor Law hospitals; members of the armed forces had no right to vote. Even those who did have the right to vote found it a complicated business: registering as a voter required one to tell the official which franchise was the relevant one. And, of course, women were explicitly excluded from the act, even if they qualified by the property they owned. A growing feeling that women should have the vote was to achieve nothing concrete for another three decades.

ESSAYS • 175

On the other hand, the 1885 Act had actually increased the number of plural voters, who probably numbered as many as half a million. It was possible to vote both as a householder and as the owner or tenant of business premises; and graduates of Oxford, Cambridge or London University could vote twice: once where they lived and once for their University’s two MPs. Indeed, the university votes existed until 1948. Thus the prosperous, or the educated, had more representation than the poor. Democracy is also a matter of who represents the voter. Until the introduction of state payment of MPs in 1911, only the wealthy could afford to enter Parliament, and so working men could not be represented by people like themselves. At the time of the 1880 election, there were only three working men sitting in the House of Commons, as members of the Liberal Party and, although the numbers increased over the next two decades as trade unions began to support or sponsor MPs, most working men saw themselves represented by men who had no idea what their lives were like. Much greater strides had been made in dealing with the other practices which limited the effectiveness of the democratic process. The Secret Ballot Act was introduced in 1872, in a carefully thought-out form which demonstrated the determination of Parliament to prevent corruption at elections. As the act specified, The Ballot of each voter shall consist of a paper (in this Act called a Ballot paper) showing the names and description of the candidates . . . the voter, having secretly marked his vote on the paper, and folded it up so as to conceal his vote, shall place it in a closed box in the presence of the officer presiding at the polling station . . . After the close of the poll, the ballot boxes shall be sealed up so as to prevent the introduction of additional ballot papers.15

By the time the 1874 general election had been completed, the secret ballot was established. There was, inevitably, still some corruption, and Gladstone attempted to deal with that in 1883 with the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act. This controlled the amount of expenditure permitted and set down a maximum for the number of people who could be employed in election work. To this day it is against the law for a party to pay taxi cabs to drive their supporters to the poll: electoral transport must be free. The sanctions were severe: electoral malpractice was punishable by fines, by imprisonment and by forfeiture of the parliamentary seat won through its use. The average cost per vote, which had been 18s 9d, or over 90p in 1880, fell to 3s 8d, or less than 20p by 1910. The other benefit was that elections became much less prone to drunkenness and disorder. By the end of the 1880s, Britain was more democratic than it had been 20 years before. The methods of election were less liable to corruption than ever before, although there were undoubtedly still constituencies where the employer, the landlord or in due course, the trade union, exercised undue influence. And while there were large groups in the population who remained unenfranchised, there was a growing awareness that this was an injustice, as could be seen when women were given the vote at local level in the 1888 County Councils Act and were rapidly permitted to stand for election to the county councils as well. Further changes were inevitable, though it is perhaps surprising that they took so long to be achieved.

176 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

a) b)

What reforms to the political system were enacted during the period 1868 to 1894? (15 marks) Why were these reforms seen to be necessary? (15 marks)

Part (a) needs a clear summary, including both central and local reforms; part (b) is in some ways easier, since you can explain the specific need for each reform in turn, in the more general context of the pervading and increasing feeling that the ordinary people should have more rights and more involvement in the political process.

2. Defence a) b)

What were the defence needs of Britain as perceived by governments in this period? How far did the reforms of the period ensure that these needs were met?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The defence needs of Britain as governments of both parties saw them appear to have been shared by the bulk of the population, and it is possible to describe them in an apparently contradictory way. Above all, the demand was that Britain’s military forces should be successful, as they had so often been in the past. The public shock which greeted any reverse, such as the defeat by the Boers in 1881, was usually equalled by the outcry in Parliament. But the second demand, both inside and outside Parliament, was that the military and naval forces of Britain should be cheap. Any suggestion of an increase in defence spending was viewed with suspicion, since it would lead to an increase in taxes. It was within this contradictory framework that the defence needs of Britain were discussed at the time and should be examined by the modern historian. Paramount was the requirement to keep Britain’s coasts inviolate. The security of the country was based on the assumption that no foreign army must ever set foot upon British soil. The most powerful argument against the proposed Channel Tunnel towards the end of the century was that the French might use it to bypass the strength of the Royal Navy. The other function of the Royal Navy was to preserve the trade routes and the sea lanes which bound together the great and growing British Empire. The acquisition of the Suez Canal emphasised the need for a permanent naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, and it was this force which was used against Arabi Pasha in 1881. Although Gladstone had not wanted to take over Cyprus, the island proved invaluable as a naval base. As far as the army was concerned, it was considered essential to base a small force at home. First, it might be needed in case of a threat to Britain’s own territory, should the unthinkable happen and an enemy manage to get past the Royal Navy. And, even after the establishment of police forces in most areas, there were still occasions of civil disorder when troops were needed. But the size of the home army was always small, both because of the demand for economy and because of the residual dislike of a ‘standing army’; during the seventeenth century, monarchs in Europe

ESSAYS • 177

had used troops to enforce despotic powers, and the British Parliament had ensured that such a thing could never happen in Britain. Britain had fewer than 90,000 soldiers stationed at home, in comparison to France’s 400,000. Prussia, even before the unification of Germany, had a peacetime army of 300,000. Since both France and Prussia/Germany conscripted their citizens for a period of National Service, these countries had a large trained reserve. Britain did have larger numbers of men under arms, but these were far away, in India. The British army in India had approximately 200,000 men, of whom about 50,000 were British. Beginning its life as the East India Company’s army, this force was, by the end of the 1850s, under the control of the government in Britain. The function of this army was to maintain British authority in India and to protect the borders: it was these troops who were used in Afghanistan. They might also be used in attacks or – as the authorities would put it – in the defence of British interests, in areas such as China and Burma. b) During this period, both the army and the navy were the subject of reforms. The Royal Navy was in a sense the victim of its historic success. It was assumed that the navy was efficient and omnipotent, whereas in fact the state of the navy was a matter of great and growing concern. At the most basic level, no one had found a reliable and convincing way of recruiting sailors, once the press-gang became unacceptable, so there was a shortage of competent and healthy crews. Life at sea was sufficiently uncomfortable and dangerous to repel most young men, although the schools established with a naval discipline were able to mould young men from the slums into fighting men. The life of a naval officer was more attractive and the career path clear, so that the Royal Navy was commanded by men of ability. At the very top, however, the problems were again apparent. The admiralty was hostile to innovation, adopting steam only reluctantly and retaining practices appropriate to wooden ships even after they had been forced to moved to metal hulls. A wooden ship is more watertight for being immersed in water, since the wood swells and prevents leakage. An iron ship, however, is corroding from the moment she is first launched. In 1871, a comparatively new ship, HMS Megaera, was found to be so corroded that her leaks could not be repaired and she had to be scrapped, amid public outcry. The Royal Commission which reported in 1872 was intensely critical of the government and the admiralty, citing a long history of neglect, underspending and incompetence. In response, Gladstone appointed as first lord (minister of the navy) G.J. Goschen, who had been so successful as head of the Poor Law Board. The Liberal reluctance to increase taxation, or to spend significant sums on defence, ensured that Gladstone refused to accept Goschen’s recommendations either to increase spending, or to cut overseas commitments. The only reason that the Royal Navy was able to continue to carry out its obligations was that it was so much larger than any other naval force. The principle of the ‘two power standard’ was already informally established, requiring Britain to have a navy equal to that of any two other powers, and foreign powers, seeing the size of the Royal Navy, did not risk testing its effectiveness. Not until Germany began to build a number of ships which would breach the standard was revenue available for the much-needed construction programme. Even then, the admiralty was reluctant even to consider new ideas, such as submarine warfare. It was the reputation of the Royal Navy which provided the defence of Britain at sea in this period. The army, too, suffered from a reluctance to spend money. Cardwell’s army reforms could be seen in terms of making economies. The desire of governments to reduce defence expenditure was an incentive towards recognising the Dominion Status of the ‘White’ colonies: in 1867, the new Dominion of Canada was given responsibility for its own defence and Australia was soon to follow.

178 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

As with the Royal Navy, recruitment was a problem once the more corrupt practices of bountyseeking recruiters had become publicly unacceptable. The army was not seen as a satisfactory career for a boy from a respectable working family, and the methods of discipline confirmed the view of soldiers as violent and dangerous. The ending of flogging in peacetime had been demanded and expected since the 1850s, when the public had been shocked to discover that grown men could be brutally – and sometimes fatally – beaten for breaches of discipline. Cardwell’s reforms did not end flogging, which continued in peacetime until 1881, and in wartime until the beginning of conscription in the First World War. Cardwell was able to convince the War Office that a shorter period of enlistment would attract recruits, although there were complaints for years afterwards that training suffered. The ending of purchased commissions was a matter of Liberal ideology. Their view that appointment and promotion should be on merit had already been applied in the Indian and British civil services, and it was now the turn of the army. But the ending of purchase was not matched by an increase in the pay of officers, and thus a private income was essential to survive as an army officer. There was therefore little effect on the social makeup of the officer ranks, although there was, within a few decades, a difference in the amount of expertise available. Cardwell’s reforms also rearranged the command at the very highest level, with the subordination of the commander in chief to the secretary of state for war. But this could have little actual effect in conflicts far from home, as the behaviour of Gordon in the Sudan demonstrated. Cardwell’s reforms also failed to deal with the problems in procurement, which continued to be inept and anti-innovatory. The War Office continued to make use of a fixed list of companies, and thus the supply of the latest war materiel would never be possible. The War Office was not certain that machine guns, such as the Maxim gun, would be useful enough to merit its purchase for all infantry regiments. Thus the reforms of this period had little effect on the organisation and standards of the British forces. Yet peace and free trade were essential to Britain’s continued prosperity, while at the same time the huge extent and diversity of the Empire made Britain vulnerable to attack. Awareness of the limitations of its forces pushed Britain into the policy, which Disraeli called ‘proud reserve’, of avoiding conflicts on land wherever possible. Changes within Britain meant that public opinion was increasingly important, and it was a public opinion which preferred low taxation and minimal involvement with foreign adventures. To the present day, of course, the British people have continued to demand top quality defence forces without wishing to cover the inevitable costs.

a) b)

What reforms to the army and navy were made in this period? How well prepared for war was Britain in the 1890s?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Difficulties of the Crimean War followed by rapid Prussian advances had led to a rethink of what was needed. The main problems were seen as: failures of communication and supply; inadequate manpower; failure to modernise equipment. Problems apparently largely solved by 1890s.

ESSAYS • 179

Para 2: Army reforms, aimed to attract a better quality of men, to facilitate the provision of modern equipment and to streamline the chain of command: brief details of Cardwell’s plans. Para 3: Navy reforms details. Problems: difficulty of recruiting to the hard life of the seaman if ‘pressing’ was no longer acceptable; great successes of the past leading to complacency; admiralty reluctance to move from wood to iron and from sail to steam (as later, reluctance to move from coal to oil). b) Para 4: The reforms took too long to work through, as the Boer War was to show. There were improvements: increased links with the (much more) professional army of India; improvement in training of officers, but private soldiers continued to be seen as the dregs of society. Not clear whether the aim was an army for Europe or for colonial conflicts, and the Boer War was the worst of both worlds: a ‘European’ enemy (in terms of arms and skills) in a colonial setting. Para 5: The navy was improved and rationalised (details), but overstretched (as it was to be through two world wars in the next century); its preventive and protective role was clearer than its actual wartime role: it was not properly equipped for troop and supply carrying. Para 6: The wars of the 1890s and beyond indicated that the forces available to Britain were adequate for minor colonial actions, but anything more challenging found the British armed forces were not fully reformed. There had been no question of national service and a trained reserve; thus when large numbers were needed, the calibre of recruits was alarmingly poor. The lack of collaboration between the different arms of the service could be seen in the problems of supply in the South African War, and more disastrously at Gallipoli in 1915. Conclusion: The risk is always that reforms look to improve the conduct of the previous war without sufficient predictive thinking about how future wars should be conducted. For example, during the 1870s and 1880s, there was no interest in possibilities of air warfare, unlike the French experiments with balloons. And with the constant pressure to keep taxes down, there was little chance of full-scale reform.

3. Local government and administration Was British local administration more efficient as a result of government reforms in this period?

(90 marks)

By the time Gladstone came to power in 1868, it was clear that the local government system would have to be reformed. Town government had been reformed in the 1830s, but since then all that had happened was more and more duties had been imposed and more different layers of ad hoc administration had grown up. By 1870, there were over 27,000 local authorities of one kind or another, including counties, boroughs, Poor Law unions and highway districts, and the establishment of the school boards increased this number substantially. Gladstone’s government realised that some kind of supervision was essential, not least because of the amount of grant-in-aid going

180 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

to the local authorities, and in 1871 the Local Government Board was established. Since 1867, the Metropolitan Poor Law Act had provided for the establishment of Poor Law hospitals in London, and from 1874, a central grant of 4 shillings per week per patient was made available for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in appropriate accommodation. In 1872, a network of local sanitary authorities was organised, covering the entire country and each with a medical officer of health; but their duties overlapped with those of the Poor Law guardians. By this time, there were as many as 18 different kinds of local rates (property based taxes). Separate rates were collected for different purposes, which ensured that the local people knew what they were funding; but it was a cumbersome system. In 1862, in Newcastle upon Tyne, seven distinct rates were being collected, and five was a perfectly normal number. In some areas, the Education Acts alone caused the rates to quadruple. Central governments made no attempt to reform this system. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Management Act of 1855 had enabled local councils to gain control of various different services, and by 1870, parks, fire services and tramways were included; some boroughs began to supply gas and other services to their people. The duties which local governments had to perform continued to increase. The Highways Acts of 1862 and 1878 grouped parishes into highway districts and then defined the roads for which they were responsible. Any roads other than local ones were to be paid for in part by the counties, and from 1882 onwards, modest grants-in-aid were available from central government revenues. But until the establishment of the county councils in 1888, there were no efficient mechanisms to assist the counties to carry out the growing number of tasks imposed on them by the Highways, Food and Drugs and Police Acts, for example. From 1856, every area was required to have a police force on the Peelite pattern, but the training and supervision of police forces was patchy and inefficient, as revealed by several well publicised scandals and corruption cases. The most important local government reform of the period was the County Councils Act of 1888, the work of Lord Salisbury’s Conservative government. Elected councils were to govern the counties and to organise much of the work previously in the hands of the Justices of the Peace. It was not a very logical reform, however, since no attempt was made to rationalise the inequalities of the varying shires: Rutland, with its population of 21,000, was expected to operate the same system as Lancashire with a population of 3.5 million. The Conservatives knew better than to annoy their staunchest supporters with suggestions of radical change. In the towns, however, they had no such inhibitions. Sixty-one county boroughs were established to govern towns too big for mere municipal councils. And London became a county on its own. The London County Council, set up in 1888, was dominated by Fabians and followers of the ideas of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and became renowned for the radical policies it adopted. Later Conservative ministries were to extend the reform of local government, although the Poor Law guardians continued to play a part until 1929. The 1888 Act (and the act of the following year for Scotland) provided a structure for all the work which had to be done in the localities. The structures were in place for local government and, where the personalities of the area wanted to make use of their power, much could now be done. Joseph Chamberlain, the reforming mayor of Birmingham between 1873 and 1876, demonstrated this when he set in motion a radical programme of improvements, increasing the income from the rates while steadily improving

ESSAYS • 181

the health of the citizens. As sewerage, water supplies and the provision of power improved, the death rate fell by 29 per cent. Once local councils were allowed to borrow money, to run utilities and generally to run their area like a business, many took advantage of these opportunities: Glasgow owned and ran its own telephones at the end of the nineteenth century; 61 councils owned the tramways in their towns; and in Hull, cremation was provided free by the borough council. On the other hand, the opportunities for corruption were such that central government felt compelled to audit and supervise the accounts of the local authorities. The audit was removed from the Local Government Board and given to the Audit Department, which, since 1866, had been reorganised to ensure that the auditor general was not a ministerial appointment and that he answered to the House of Commons. Much remained to be done to ensure that the ratepayers’ money was spent properly. Nor was anything done about the valuations for rates, many of which had been set over a century before, and bore no relationship to current land and business values. Since 1862 the Poor Law unions had been responsible for valuations for rates; but they had few resources for a thorough reassessment, which would have entailed visiting every property in their area, and they were not anxious to risk the expensive litigation that might follow new valuations. Neither Liberal nor Conservative governments felt able to reform this overcomplex and outdated system. Disraeli’s government removed some of the work done by local authorities with the 1877 Prisons Act, which removed the prisons from local control and established a national system. The previous year, the Home Office had been given the sole power to issue licences for vivisection – the use of animals for experimental purposes without such a licence became illegal. Until 1876, decisions about scientific use of animals had been, like so much else, a matter for local magistrates. But any attempt to remove other expensive and difficult duties from the local authorities was met with opposition and accusations of central despotism. Gladstone’s view of government embodied above all the Liberal ideal of appointment by merit, but it was not possible to introduce this kind of professionalism to local government, which remained a matter for part-timers and for local dignitaries, even after the introduction of properly elected county councils. Although the increased local and national franchise of 1867 and 1884–5, together with the technically more efficient collection of data about social evils, led to more social reform, the overt aim remained cheap government and lower taxation both locally and nationally. But economy was not possible given the continuous increase in the tasks of local government and the multiplying of boards and departments required to supervise the ever-growing duties. Without vociferous public demands for more schools, mines inspectors, police forces, census enumerators, and so on, the numbers grew relentlessly as these services soon became a normal and essential part of life. Local government, whether in boroughs or counties, expanded in duties and manpower throughout this period. But there was naturally no attempt to construct a logical system from first principles. Rather, the governments of this period built upon centuries of overlapping structures, financed by a tangle of different payments, so that the efficiency of local governments was much less than was needed for all the services dependent upon them.

182 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

a) b)

Compare the attitudes of Gladstone and Disraeli to the civil service. Why, under both prime ministers, did the burden of central and local taxation rise, rather than fall?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) A brief explanation of the term ‘civil service’ will provide you with a basis from which to consider the transition from patronage to appointment by merit and to note Gladstone’s preference for mechanisms which had, after all, been pioneered for India by earlier Liberal administrations; Disraeli’s willingness to continue to use people selected by personal contacts, especially in the Cabinet Office. b) The second part of the question is only partly about the civil service and the cost of administration, although a professional civil service has significant wage-bill implications. The rest of your answer should consider all the costly obligations placed on both local and central government by reform legislation, while at the same time noting that both parties had hoped to reduce taxation.

4. Disraeli and Gladstone compared a) b)

Consider the view that Disraeli’s reforms were ‘intrinsically Conservative’ and those of Gladstone ‘intrinsically Liberal’. (15 marks) Which of the two produced the more useful political and administrative reforms? (15 marks)

a) Any comparison between the work of these two statesmen is made more complex by the difference in the lengths of their terms of office. Disraeli, after his brief ministry following on from Lord Derby, was prime minister only for the six years between 1874 and 1880, whereas Gladstone spent almost 15 years as prime minister. On the other hand, the personality of Disraeli appears much larger than life. One reason for this is the lurid nature of his personality and his waistcoats. His father had converted his whole family from Judaism to Christianity, but Disraeli was still depicted in cartoons as a Shylock figure, and senior members of his own party regularly referred to his jewishness. In 1868, for example, the marquis of Salisbury had called him ‘the Jewish adventurer’. Despite this, Disraeli’s period in power is seen as ‘intrinsically Conservative’ and his influence lasted well beyond his death, aided by the Primrose League, established in 1883 to advance his kind of Conservatism, and by the celebration of Primrose Day on 19 April, the anniversary of his death in 1881. The league had over 800,000 members by 1914. At the same time, Gladstone, in spite of beginning his parliamentary career in the Conservative Party, is recognised as ‘intrinsically Liberal’. His dour morality and his passionate oratory, together with his support for what would, in the next century, be called a ‘meritocracy’, meant that his policies marked the Liberals as the party of earnest reform, after the more light-hearted years of Palmerston and Aberdeen.

ESSAYS • 183

The difference in their approach to administrative reform can be seen in their Parliamentary Reform Acts. In 1867, in Derby’s brief ministry, it was Disraeli who guaranteed the passing of the second Parliamentary Reform Act. After weeks of painstaking debate about limited and controlled franchises, Disraeli amazed everyone by suddenly enfranchising many thousands of working men. Closer inspection of the terms, however, reveals just how Conservative the act was. It left the county franchises untouched, and therefore the Conservatives could continue to draw their strength from the shire and small borough constituencies. Indeed, removing urban voters from the shires enhanced the Conservative hold on their heartlands. A modest redistribution increased the number of county seats from 144 to 169. ‘The constituencies which the Conservatives most feared gained little. London, which on a weighting for its electorate might have expected some 60 extra members, received only a handful . . . The established interests among which the Conservatives were so strongly represented had escaped relatively unscathed.’16 Meanwhile, it could be said that the enfranchising of working men ensured that the Liberals would have to become more radical and therefore occupy less of the middle ground. When Gladstone’s turn for parliamentary reform came, he tackled the county franchise, providing the vote (and, earlier, the secret ballot, essential if tenant farmers and coal miners were to vote freely) for almost all adult men. The Redistribution Act of 1885 divided the shires into single-seat constituencies with more opportunity to form a relationship with the MP, but the large towns also became single-seat constituencies, so that Liberals could concentrate on their own areas and work with local people. Both men produced important reforms to regulate the position of trade unions, and both altered the way in which local government functioned, as well as vastly increasing the responsibilities of local councillors. b) Disraeli’s reputation rests most strongly on the notable social reforms which were achieved during his ministries. He was not particularly interested in administrative reforms, preferring to make use of his own friends and people he trusted. Gladstone, on the other hand, was extremely concerned about the organisation of the administration. His first ministry saw important developments in the control of local government, and also in the way in which the army was run, the emphasis being on rewarding merit and ensuring efficiency. There was indignation at the ending of purchased commissions, which had ensured that army officers, poorly paid as they were, had the funds to sustain their social superiority. Gladstone was inclined to think that only a gentleman could really command men, but he was determined to ensure that officers should have proper training, experience and ability before promotion was obtained. Gladstone wanted the same emphases to apply in the civil service. As each year the amount of government work increased, the previous methods of patronage could not work. It was unacceptable to Gladstone that ministers appointed as their assistants young men who were relatives or had contacts in high places. But the imposition of a competitive examination system took time and was resisted by many senior officials. Well into the 1880s, there were examples of civil servants being appointed first and then ‘fed’ the answers for their test. The Foreign Office was similarly reluctant to adopt the new methods. It is important to remember that Gladstone’s reforms did not open the civil service to all. The examinations were entirely based on the classical curriculum of the great private schools and the older universities. Indeed, for over a hundred years, entry to the civil service by people from state schools and any university other than Oxford or Cambridge was very much the exception rather than the rule.

184 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

The most important administrative reform, in terms of its effect, was the Secret Ballot Act of 1872. Corruption and coercion had been accepted parts of elections when the electorate was small; but with mass voting came new problems, and Gladstone’s reform dealt effectively with it. After being tested in one by-election in 1873, the secret ballot worked without a hitch in the 1874 election, and fears about illiteracy, expense and delays were proved to be irrelevant. The redistribution of seats in Gladstone’s Act of 1885 was also a radical change, and it established the geography of the British electoral scene as it is today. Although Disraeli had enfranchised the urban working classes, the methods of election were left for Gladstone to deal with. Improvements in the judicial system were also the work of Gladstone, as was the Married Women’s Property Act, which ensured that women were not entirely under the power of their husbands, at least as far as property was concerned. These were less dramatic than a new title for the queen, but in terms of the effective regulation of the life of the citizens were extremely important. Disraeli’s reputation rests, rightly, on his foreign policy and on the social reforms of his Home Secretary, Richard Cross. He expressed little interest in the bread and butter issues of administrative effectiveness, and therefore it is not surprising that Gladstone’s reforms in this field are the more significant. Indeed, as we shall see in the next chapter, Gladstone’s career foundered on his wish to alter the way in which Ireland was administered, rather than on any attempt to reform other aspects of Irish life.

a) b)

How important in the formulation of policy was the personal antagonism between Gladstone and Disraeli? What evidence is there in this period of Queen Victoria’s marked preference for Disraeli over Gladstone?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Whether or not you conclude that the antagonism was important, you need some examples of how they differed and argued against each other; you should also discuss whether the differences were personal or party political. The part (b) again requires discussion of the ‘marked preference’ from both the queen’s words and her actions, and consideration of whether her attitudes were able to affect policy, or whether, on the contrary, it was policy decisions which exacerbated her hostility to Gladstone.

Part 2: Essays 2 – foreign affairs 5. The Balkans a) b)

Why were the Balkans of such interest to British governments? Was Disraeli right to say that he had brought back ‘peace with honour’ from the 1878 Congress of Berlin?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

ESSAYS • 185

a) The Balkans is the name given to the large peninsula which lies to the east of Italy and to the west of Turkey. Greece lies at the southern end and the River Danube flows across the northern part of the region to the Black Sea. The area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since the sixteenth century and was of interest to Britain throughout the nineteenth century. British policy was to support the Turkish sultan; but problems in the Balkans were likely to arise as a result of Turkey’s failure to reform its oppressive government. And trouble amongst the Christian populations of the Balkans could only strengthen Russia. The perception that Russia was a great danger to the route to India, and therefore to the Empire, meant that traditional British policy continued to sustain the Ottoman Empire, however unsound its government. The victory in the Crimea in the 1850s had closed the Black Sea to Russian warships, but, after 1870, the Russians rejected the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris, and Britain did not feel able to dispute the action. The Balkan crisis of 1877–8 arose because Russia again attempted to extend its influence across the Balkans and into the Mediterranean, and Britain could not accept this possibility. The existence of the Suez Canal, even before Britain became the controlling power in Egypt, meant that the eastern Mediterranean was of crucial importance. The need to have a friendly power controlling the Balkans was paramount, and thus Britain’s support for the Turkish Empire was maintained despite difficulties in the region. British ships patrolled the eastern end of the Mediterranean from their base in Malta with the right to make use of Turkish ports and harbours. Any conflicts arising in the Balkan area were likely to be of concern to Britain. The British educated classes were also interested in the Balkans, since a study of the literature, history and civilisation of classical Greece was the central component of the curriculum in the schools of the wealthy. As early as the 1820s, the Greek struggle for independence from Turkey had fired the imagination of the poet George, Lord Byron, who had travelled to Greece to join in the fight. The concept of the Christian peoples of the Balkans rising in rebellion against the Turks was one which appealed to the British, even if their governments preferred to support the sultan’s regime. Thus, when the Turkish irregular troops brutally suppressed the rebellious people of Bulgaria and the Russians declared their support for the Christian victims, Britain was bound to take an interest in events in the Balkans. Stimulated by Gladstone’s pamphlet about the ‘Bulgarian Horrors’, the public at first demanded an attack on Turkey, but when the Russians moved from assisting the Bulgarians to annexing substantial areas of territory and forcing the Turks to agree to the Treaty of San Stephano, public attitudes changed and Disraeli took the good wishes of the electorate with him when he travelled to the 1878 Congress in Berlin. b) Disraeli’s claim on his return from Berlin was that he had brought back ‘peace with honour’, and it is certainly true that the Congress maintained the peace of the Balkan region for the next 25 years. Had ‘Big Bulgaria’ been established as a Russian protectorate, as the Treaty of San Stephano had planned, Britain would have been forced into war. The loss of territory which would have weakened the Turkish Empire, would have been compounded by the fact that Turkey lost its access to its few remaining holdings in the Balkans and that Russia would have had both unimpeded access through the Black Sea straits and useful harbours for warships. Britain would not

186 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

have allowed this to happen, and war would have been the only way to stop it. One reason why Disraeli was so keen to achieve a negotiated settlement was his memory of how difficult the war in the Crimea had been. The extent to which the preservation of the Turkish Empire was honourable is less easy to estimate, since the settlement was predicated on the commitment of the sultan to reform his administration, and this commitment was not fulfilled. The sultan’s government was both corrupt and inefficient, and the mistreatment of the Christians had been a serious and increasing problem throughout the century. The international community had demanded reforms and improved conditions for Christians, but there were no mechanisms for supervision, and the sultan’s government was set in its ways and unlikely to change. Indeed, the next few decades were punctuated with renewed rebellions and repression, of which the most brutal was to be the crushing of the national aspirations of the Armenians. The European powers did not intervene to protect these peoples as they had done to defend the Bulgarians. Although the Bulgarians did not gain all the territory they had hoped to, the break-up of ‘Big Bulgaria’ left the Bulgarians with a substantial and viable country with a useful coastline on the Black Sea, even if they had lost their hoped for access to the Mediterranean. As the victims of Turkish aggression, they were seen to be deserving, and it seemed honourable to Disraeli to establish a Bulgarian nation on its own territory. The provision of Home Rule for the area known as Eastern Rumelia was perhaps rather cynical. The population was predominantly Bulgarian, and the Turkish government was unable to control Rumelian aspirations to join Bulgaria, which were fulfilled without international opposition in 1887. The other Balkan nation rewarded at the Congress of Berlin was Serbia. The Christian Orthodox population had always looked to Russia for support against the Turks, and they had been promised an autonomous government by the Treaty of San Stephano. This was confirmed at Berlin, despite Disraeli’s reluctance to reduce the holdings of the sultan, since the problems of policing this western area would have stretched the Turkish security forces and risked renewed conflict. But the establishment of Serbia with no coastline proved to be a mistake. The new nation demanded more, and the Balkan wars of the early twentieth century can be directly traced to Serbian resentment of their 1878 boundaries. Another decision which was to lead to Europe-wide disaster within 35 years was the acceptance of the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia. Austro-Hungarian support had been essential to the powers opposing Russia’s ambitions, and it was rewarded by the blind eye turned to its occupation of the area it formally annexed a few years later. But the population of Bosnia was predominantly Serbian, and the demand to join Serbia was the torch which began the First World War in 1914. Disraeli could not have predicted this, but the ethics of removing territory from one great power – Turkey – only to hand it to another, must be questioned. Britain gained the island of Cyprus at the Congress of Berlin. Disraeli had not gone to Germany looking for territorial gain and would have been content to see the Turkish Empire secure and Russian Mediterranean ambitions again contained. But the island of Cyprus was in a key position and had a complicated ethnic history and mixture. Occupied by Venice in the Middle Ages and inhabited by Greeks as well as Turks, the island had been the jumping-off point for campaigns in the Holy Land and in Egypt. Turkey could not be allowed to keep Cyprus, since it was not strong

ESSAYS • 187

enough to ensure adequate security; but the sultan refused to contemplate handing it over to Greece. Thus Britain gained a naval base which was maintained until the second half of the twentieth century. Disraeli’s reasons for accepting Cyprus were exactly those which had taken him to Berlin: to ensure that the only nation able to dominate the sea routes of the eastern Mediterranean was Britain. The fact that the Balkans continued to be a flashpoint for both nationalist and Europe-wide conflict should not be used as evidence that the settlement of Berlin was unsatisfactory. Disraeli returned to Britain having ensured that two great and despotic powers were not able to tear each other apart, or to persecute unduly the people of the Balkans. When, in 1939, the words used by Disraeli were quoted by Neville Chamberlain on his return from yielding to the demands of Adolf Hitler, the same could not be said.

To what extent did the revisions embodied in the Treaty of Berlin alleviate British anxieties about the Treaty of San Stephano?

(90 marks)

Essay Plan Introduction: Brief summary of the relationship between the two treaties: that the refusal, by Britain among others, to accept the Treaty of San Stephano led to the negotiation of the more satisfactory, but still destabilising Treaty of Berlin. Para 2: Details about what made the Tr of SS unacceptable to Britain in terms of Russia – the Protectorate of Big Bulgaria and the extension of Russian influence. Para 3: Details about what made the Tr of SS unacceptable to Britain in terms of Turkey – no access to Constantinople, weakening of hold on Straits, weakening of status of sultan. Para 4: British public opinion, and the government view that such issues should not be settled by force majeur. Para 5: Details of Treaty of Berlin relating to Turkey’s position, but the question of reforms in the sultan’s government was not settled. Para 6: Discussion of the effect on Russia: much less strong than under San Stephano (mouth of the Danube, loss of Bulgarian protectorate) but had shown that it would take a coalition of powers to stop future Russian advances. Para 7: Usefulness of Cyprus for a Royal Navy presence in the eastern Mediterranean for future similar crises. Para 8: Enhanced status of Germany for hosting the successful conference: could damage ‘balance’ in Europe. Conclusion: Worries about Balkan nationalities for Austria: look ahead to where the Great War would in fact begin.

188 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

6. South Africa a) b)

How important was South Africa to Britain? (15 marks) Is it true to say that both Disraeli and Gladstone mishandled the Boers? (15 marks)

South Africa’s importance, as far as Britain was concerned, changed with the opening of the Suez Canal. Before the 1870s the Cape was essential as a staging post on the route to India, and it had been for this reason that it had been taken from the Dutch and retained in 1815. Once steam had become the normal means of propulsion for freight, ships put in for coal as well as other stores. The Royal Navy maintained a presence there to protect the vital sea lanes. Although the construction and opening in 1869 of a canal linking the Mediterranean and Red Seas meant that the Suez route became crucial, the Cape continued to provide a much-used alternative and thus remained of considerable significance. Although the route was slower, it was toll free and did not run the risk of the difficulties in the eastern Mediterranean which were a feature of the later decades of the nineteenth century. At the same time, the discovery of diamonds in Griqualand to the north, gave South Africa an intrinsic rather than a merely positional importance, which grew with the discovery of gold in the Rand. The enthusiasm of British explorers for the unknown interior of the African continent appeared to be insatiable, whether they were searching for lost rivers, for the lost tribes of Israel, or merely to put a stop to the African slave trade. The possession and control of land in South Africa provided a jumping-off point for these intrepid men. The British were also aware of the Portuguese presence in Mozambique, and a part of their interest in South Africa was pre-emptive. The risk that another European power might occupy territory close enough to British holdings to influence the natives was unacceptable to many on both sides of British politics, and this ensured that there were always votes in favour of defending the territories already annexed. Later this risk was to be realised with the German annexation of Namibia. On the other hand, the trade routes around the Cape were only a part of Britain’s world-wide commerce. Significant amounts of trade crossed the Atlantic, or took the Cape Horn route to and from Asia, bypassing the Cape, as well as the Suez Canal, altogether; experience with the South American and United States trade demonstrated that the possession of territory was not a prerequisite for commerce, or even for resupplying and coaling ships. Nevertheless, the British government’s perception of the importance of the Cape led to war and further annexations during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. b) For Disraeli and his associates, the Boer republics to the north and west of Cape Colony and Natal were an affront to British imperial status, as well as a possible incursion point for other European powers. Although the Boers, who had set up the Orange Free State and the Transvaal as a sanctuary from the sinful nature of British South African society in the 1830s, merely wanted to be left alone, it appeared to Disraeli that they might be tempted by friendly offers from – say – Germany. Disraeli therefore sought a pretext to redress the situation. This pretext appeared with the southward drive of the Zulu nation, under their leader King Cetewayo. The pastoral

ESSAYS • 189

Zulus, always seeking new grasslands, were impressive fighters who could and did push aside less organised peoples. It became clear, during the 1870s, that they would threaten the Boer lands north of the Vaal river. Disraeli hoped that gratitude for British defence against the Zulu threat would swallow up any objections that the Boers might have to losing the autonomy they had enjoyed since the Great Trek. Thus the Transvaal was annexed and – with difficulty – the Zulus were defeated at Ulundi. Disraeli had, however, misjudged Boer reactions to annexation and indeed to the Zulus. Having been annexed, the Boers left the defence of their lands very much to the British and viewed the initial British defeat at Isandlwhana with an element of satisfaction. Once the Zulus had been defeated, they were not content to remain under the control of the godless and – in frontier territories – lawless British. While Disraeli died before the full impact of his policy concerning the Boers rebounded in the faces of the British, he had certainly misjudged them and over-estimated the ability of the governor in Cape Colony to find a satisfactory accommodation with them. Gladstone, too, miscalculated. He condemned the annexation when it took place and committed his party to restoring autonomy to the Boers. But, on coming to power in 1880, he delayed. Gladstone’s approach to foreign policy decisions was often simply to avoid making them until circumstances changed, a policy which he was to try when Gordon failed to withdraw from Khartoum, which, leading to Gordon’s heroic but pointless death, made Gladstone extremely unpopular. The same applied to his handling of the Boers. Following the election victory of 1880, the Boers waited expectantly. Gladstone, however, made no attempt to pressurise the South African authorities or the Colonial Office, and the delays convinced the Boers that they must take matters into their own hands. The 1881 Battle of Majuba Hill barely merits the title of a war, but by defeating the British troops stationed in their lands, the Boers could claim to have seized, rather than being tamely granted, their independence. Gladstone’s readiness to negotiate seemed, in this context, more like weakness than statesmanship, and the limitations imposed on the Boer Republics – that Britain must approve any foreign agreements they signed – was the more resented. Gladstone had been willing to give in to the Boers but, by procrastinating, had enabled the Boers to demonstrate to the world that Britain’s imperial fortress was not impregnable. And the Boers’ desire to avoid future British pressure made them extremely sensitive to subsequent encroachments. At the same time, the veto on foreign agreements made them more attractive to the Boers. When the possibility arose of a railway linking Pretoria to the sea in Portuguese Mozambique, the Boers were disinclined to ask British permission. Thus the far more serious Boer War of 1899–1902 had its roots in the mishandling of the Boers by both Gladstone and Disraeli.

a) b)

How significant was the Boer victory of 1881 in the context of the British Empire? Consider the view that Gladstone failed to live up to his own principles in his actions over Southern Africa.

(30 marks) (60 marks)

The short answer to part (a) may well be ‘not very’ and you need to point out that the principle of Home Rule had already been conceded and it was only the foot-dragging of Britain which forced the war. On the other hand, the impact of such a defeat on Britain’s self-esteem

190 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

and international status is relevant. Part (b) should begin with an outline of Gladstone’s principles, and your discussion of the application of these principles should include not only the Boers in 1881 but also the question of colonial expansion to the north and the failure to contain the emigration of gold prospectors to the Rand in the later years of Gladstone’s tenure of office.

7. Egypt and the Sudan a) b)

Did both Disraeli and Gladstone make mistakes in their handling of Egypt? Discuss the view that neither had any choice over what should be done in Egypt.

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Both Disraeli and Gladstone were compelled to deal with issues in Egypt in ways which were unexpected and costly, and both found the decisions they had to make about the region less straightforward than they expected. The purchase of the Suez Canal shares in 1875 was strikingly simple, since Rothschild’s Bank lent the money with no more formality than the statement from Disraeli’s secretary that the British government was the security for the loan. But it became necessary to put British advisers into the khedive’s court to prevent him from spending the purchase price on further destabilising extravagance, and then to provide troops to protect the advisers and so on. The Treaty of Berlin was affected by the British hold on Egypt, since the island of Cyprus had to be taken over to prevent it falling from the sultan’s hands into those of some inimical power. Once Sir Edward Baring was in place as Tewfik’s financial adviser, the British were committed to protecting him, and Gladstone had no choice but to send troops to suppress Arabi Pasha’s rebellion. His initial plan, that it should be a joint Anglo-French force, would have been preferable, in his own eyes, but the withdrawal of the French contingent left him with no choice, and thus the effective annexation of Egypt to the British Empire was achieved against the wishes of the government. It is difficult for the modern student to imagine the influence exercised by the Anti-Slavery Society, since no modern pressure group approaches it in numbers and effectiveness. Gladstone, as leader of the ‘party of morality’, could not have refused the popular demand to stop the East African slave trade, which brought men, women and children from the interior of Africa to the eastern coasts to sell in the markets of Asia and the Arab lands. Thus the stationing of British troops along the Nile southwards into the Sudan had been inevitable, even before Arabi’s rising. The growing threat of the Mahdi could not be ignored and confirmed Gladstone’s view that Britain should not be policing the lands of the Sudan. The Mahdi, leader of the Islamic sect the Dervishes, demanded the withdrawal of all Westerners, and his followers, convinced of the rightness of their cause, threatened the Nile garrisons. Gladstone’s order that all troops should withdraw to a line north of Wadi Halfa recognised British control of Egypt and the need to prevent the Mahdi’s influence reaching there, while preferring to leave the Sudan to the forces of Islam. Gladstone’s mistake was not to recognise the unstable nature of the heroic General Gordon, or to predict

ESSAYS • 191

Gordon’s determination to make an epic stand at Khartoum. On the other hand, although Gladstone was vilified for the death of Gordon, his policy was put into effect and British troops stayed out of the Sudan for a full decade after the fall of Khartoum. Gladstone’s last ministry was to demonstrate the continuing influence of Egypt over policy and the obsession with its importance. The establishment of a Protectorate over Uganda, hundreds of miles to the south, was legitimised on the pretext that it was essential to safeguard the headwaters of the River Nile. It is, perhaps, an indication of the respect that politicians had for engineers in the late nineteenth century that the British Government seriously envisaged an enemy power diverting the Nile to ruin Egypt and, with it, the route to India. b) It is hard, even with hindsight, to see what alternative actions Gladstone and Disraeli could have taken, given the context in which they were operating. Egypt was important to Britain even before the Suez Canal was built, because the Mediterranean and Red Sea route had always been a key link with India. Having set their face against involvement in the major engineering project undertaken by Eiffel and the Franco-Egyptian Company, British governments found themselves in the uncomfortable position of being dependent upon something over which they had no control. Matters would have been much worse had the canal been the possession of the French alone, and that was the possibility which confronted Disraeli in 1875 when Khedive Tewfik was forced into the sale of his shares. Disraeli’s purchase was not constitutional, in that he committed the British government to an enormous sum in repayments to Rothschild’s Bank without Parliament’s approval, but it guaranteed that the canal would not be a French monopoly. And Parliament, which might have rejected the obligation and forced Disraeli’s resignation, recognised the inevitability of a British share in the canal and accepted Disraeli’s action. Gladstone criticised the purchase on the basis of expense and with a warning that it would lead to further entanglements in the Middle East, but he could hardly recommend handing over the route to India to the French. Once British advisers were based in Egypt there was bound to be a military presence, and it was that military presence, designed to reduce the risk of danger, which exacerbated the anti-Western feeling in Egypt and stirred Arabi Pasha into rebellion. As so often, Gladstone inherited problems created by Disraeli, but he could not allow the Arabists to take over and destroy, or even block, the canal. By the time Arabi Pasha had been defeated at Tel el Kebir, British control of Egypt was a military, imperial and commercial fact. Gladstone did not favour such aggrandisement, but he had little choice. As far as the lands to the south were concerned, Gladstone’s problem lay not in the decisions he made but in his failure to enforce the orders adequately. The British garrisons along the Nile might be stopping slave traders but they were making very little difference to the trade as a whole, and Gladstone’s view, that the Mahdi and his followers should be left to control the Sudan while Britain continued to safeguard Egypt, was a reasonable one. It was scarcely Gladstone’s fault that a senior army officer refused to obey orders and in doing so put himself and the men under his command in mortal danger. Gladstone might have been justified in abandoning Gordon to his fate but instead he chose to delay making any decision until it was too late, so that he was accused of murder while at the same time having wasted resources in a belated rescue mission headed by the young General Kitchener. The relieving force despatched in October 1884 could not arrive before January 1885, by which time Khartoum had fallen. It is a measure of Gladstone’s determination to minimise

192 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

the damage and expense of the Egyptian possession that he refused any suggestion of punishment or revenge assaults on the Mahdi and his forces. By the time of Gladstone’s final retirement from public life, Egypt was firmly in British hands and the canal zone was protected by a substantial British force. Although he had avoided doing so, Gladstone’s successors inevitably extended British holdings southwards to protect the canal area. At no stage was a policy discussed which required – effectively – British control of the whole of Eastern Africa to keep the route to India safe, but that was what occurred in the years of the scramble for Africa. For either prime minister to step back from commitments in the area would have been impossible, in the context of the late nineteenth century, when the control of India was a central component of commercial and imperial policy. Disraeli was delighted to acquire influence and power in the Middle East, while Gladstone was appalled. But both found themselves compelled by circumstances and by the behaviour of others. Gladstone, confronted by the refusal of the sultan to hand over Cyprus to the Greeks, could not allow it to fall into the hands of the French or the Russians. Nor, given the importance of the canal, could he risk the anti-Western Arabists destroying it as a symbol of European economic dominance. Thus the anti-imperialist Gladstone found himself with no choice but to pursue policies which would have been attractive to his predecessor and rival, Disraeli. a) b)

What events brought the Suez Canal under British control? (15 marks) Do you agree that events in Egypt prove that ‘the route to India was the dominant factor in all foreign policy decisions of the late nineteenth century’? (15 marks)

A brief account of the background is appropriate here to emphasise the change in British attitudes once the canal was in operation and to put into context the khedive’s bankruptcy and Disraeli’s purchase. Part (b) requires a brief consideration of several different foreign policy questions as well as those in Egypt to produce a full evaluation of this rather exaggerated statement. In addition to the issue of Egypt and the direct route, you might use the Balkans and South Africa as arguments on one side, and unrelated topics like Venezuela and German unification on the other side before reaching a conclusion.

8. The Empire a) b)

For what reasons did Victoria become ‘Empress of India’? Did the Royal Titles Act of 1876 mark a new era for the British Empire?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The Royal Titles Act of 1876 declared Queen Victoria to be empress of India. Public opinion in Britain, convinced that empires were dictatorial, would not have accepted an empress at home. The example of the Tsar’s despotic rule proved the point in the eyes of the popular press. But on the other hand, Britain was certainly as great as the European powers which called themselves empires: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and, until the revolution of 1871, France. Thus to make the queen an empress of the ‘jewel in Britain’s crown’ was a way of enhancing Britain’s international status without affecting the standing of the monarchy within Britain. Once the title

ESSAYS • 193

was awarded, the fact of being an imperial power became more attractive to the British public, and the jingoism of the next decades was the greater as the extent of Britain’s possessions covered more and more of the maps displayed in the board schools and company offices of Britain. Although the title applied to India, the British Empire was seen as a global one and schoolchildren were told that the sun never set upon it. The need to ensure security and good government in India was also recognised by governments during the years following the shocking and unexpected ‘mutiny’ of 1857. The Government of India Act which had followed the mutiny had established British rather than East India Company rule in India, but the existence of native princes who were required to obey a ‘mere’ queen might have led to problems of precedence and of control, and the viceroys of India had felt that the status of empress would help this problem. The queen herself was attracted by the idea of an imperial title, like the one her grandson would enjoy as ruler of Germany. It is possible that she suggested the idea to Disraeli. Disraeli was responsive to the suggestion, in the hope that the pleasure of the title would help to stir the queen into carrying out her duties. Ever since the death of her husband in 1861, the queen had become reclusive, refusing to appear in public or to carry out her ceremonial duties. The public attitude was increasingly hostile, with the popular press wondering on behalf of the public what the money of the Civil List was being spent on. Although the queen hardly repaid Disraeli with a complete return to the dutiful hard work of her earlier years, her interest in India was a deep and lasting one, as the Durbar Room at Osborn House on the Isle of Wight confirms, and her preference for Indian servants in her later life was marked. It seems to have been the case that the new title also enhanced the queen’s popularity. Certainly, the two jubilee celebrations, focusing as they did upon the queen as the mother and ruler of a great empire, were witnessed by huge and – literally – flag-waving crowds. Whether the powers of Europe and the United States were impressed by the new title is less clear. The fact of the British holdings abroad was inescapable and went hand in hand with Britain’s commercial dominance in these years; but other areas existed, not owned by Britain, yet still entirely dependent on exports to Britain, so the fact of a British Empire was less significant than it might appear. The title, nevertheless, marked publicly the fact that Britain was committed to the protection and possible expansion of its overseas holdings. b) A new empress might have been expected to signify new departures in the development of Britain’s overseas empire, but there is little evidence that the approach to empire after 1876 was notably different from that of the years before. The Crimean War had been fought to ensure the security of British India, 20 years before the Royal Titles Act, and the 1860s and 1870s had seen expeditions and expenditure in Egypt and in Afghanistan to protect the access routes to India. As far as the rest of the Empire was concerned, 1876 marked no change in policy. Indeed, some developments appear to have had a momentum of their own and to have led to imperialist gains regardless of the attitude of the party in power at the time. In Africa, for example, until the 1860s, Britain’s holdings were limited to the Cape of Good Hope and Natal in the south, and a few commercial bases in the west. In 1861, the city of Lagos, in Nigeria, was annexed, and in 1869 territory to the north of Boer lands in Southern Africa was occupied, following the discovery of diamonds. The Ashanti Wars of 1873–4 were again attempts to ensure the safety of British trade in West Africa. The pattern in Southern and Western Africa continued without change in the

194 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

years following 1876: the annexation of the Boer territories in the face of the Zulu threat, and further fighting in the area of modern Ghana and Nigeria. Since Gladstone had expressed his hostility to the Royal Titles Act, as he had to all imperialist aspirations, it might have been expected that his imperial policy would be different from that of Disraeli. But his premiership was marked by substantial imperial gains. Against his will, his government effectively annexed Egypt in 1882 and Somaliland in 1884. During his second ministry, Bechuanaland in southern Africa was annexed, and a charter was issued to Cecil Rhodes’ South Africa Company in 1889, although the largest amount of African annexation occurred in the 1890s. There is no sign that the rate of growth in empire was related to the new title enjoyed by the queen. In India, the Royal Titles Act marked the beginning of a new era, which lasted into the twentieth century. The Indian civil service, establishing itself after the shock of the ‘mutiny’, found its status enhanced: entry to the Indian service became a highly prized career achievement, with schools and colleges established to ‘feed’ young men into the system. The Indian princes did indeed find it easier to accept the rule of an empress, and the federal nature of India was established under the umbrella of imperial Britain. But the resistance to British rule which had begun to exist was not crushed by the new act; on the contrary, it was easier to express hostility to an imperial idea than it had been to a trading company. The fact that Victoria was an empress may have changed public perceptions in Britain of the overseas Empire. While this was not an instant change, the ordinary British people could read in their newspapers and be taught in their school books about British superiority and their dominion over half the world. Royal occasions became very much imperial occasions. On the other hand, it is impossible to separate Britain’s concern for imperial possessions from the other aspects of foreign policies. Reactions, regardless of the complexion of the government, to any foreign issue were, both before and after 1876, coloured by the need to protect the route to India and to ensure that no power threatened Britain’s world-wide trade. Whatever the title of the queen and whatever Disraeli and Gladstone may have said in public, their actions confirmed this commitment both before and after 1876.

a) b)

Explain Gladstone’s attitude to British overseas possessions. Why did his declaration that he wanted ‘no more Indias’ not result in a reduction of Britain’s overseas possessions?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Although the question has ‘attitude’ in the singular, part (a) would be well answered by a consideration of Gladstone’s varying points of view: the drain on resources of defending overseas territories set alongside his recognition of the importance of trade and of the value of Christian proselytising; his hope for a moral and sincere Concert of Europe also helps to explain his attitude to the wider world. Part (b) could begin with a brief explanation of the context of the Midlothian Campaign, which was the setting for the declaration in the title; then a discussion of the factors which forced the expansion of Empire: public opinion in Britain; French and German attitudes within Europe; and individual enterprise, commercial pressure and specific crises in the wider world.

SOURCES • 195

Part 3: Sources 1. Gladstone and Disraeli compared Source A: The Times obituary of Disraeli, 20 April 1881

This is not the occasion for a cold and critical examination of Lord Beaconsfield’s course in politics during half a century. Few leaders of parties have been the objects of so much denunciation and suspicion, and scarcely one can be named who, in the face of many and great obstacles, so steadily advanced to a commanding place in the State. But today censure will be generously silent. There was much that was dignified and still more that was brilliant in Lord Beaconsfield’s career, and on those parts of it even his enemies, not always chivalrous in their attacks upon him, will prefer to dwell at the hour of his death. The doubts which sometimes tried the allegiance of his followers – though when the time for action came, no leader was ever more loyally obeyed by a proud and powerful party – will be forgotten in regret for the loss of a chief who, whatever his faults, added many remarkable pages to the history of English Conservatism. No dissentient voice will break in upon the tribute of admiration, in which foes, we are sure, will cordially join with friends, that must be paid to Lord Beaconsfield’s high courage, his unswerving purpose, his imperturbable temper, and his versatile mastery of Parliamentary tactics. Source B: A twentieth-century comment on Disraeli’s attitudes

Disraeli was not interested in the self-governing colonies, except in so far as the remaining responsibilities hampered Great Britain’s foreign policy . . . [Disraeli] was not interested in the government of indigenous populations or expansion in the tropics, except in so far as these problems affected Great Britain’s position and prestige as a world power. Disraeli was a master of ideas, not detail, and it was the part the possession of Empire could play in assisting Great Britain’s role in world affairs that interested him most. Source C: A modern view of Disraeli

It is not necessary to depict Disraeli as the prophet of a ‘new imperialism’ in order to give him credit for a serious commitment to the British Empire. His view of his country’s world role was an essentially traditionalist one. He came to power with a determination to assert what he regarded as Britain’s ‘just position’ in Europe and in the wider world. This did not necessarily entail the annexation of further territory, but it did require a determined defence of existing positions. In that, at least, he remained consistent throughout his career. Source D: The Times obituary of Gladstone, 20 May 1898

It is obvious that, in a country where seriousness is a great force [religion] must have proved to Mr Gladstone a source of strength, if of weakness also. Given beliefs as intense as those of Mr Gladstone, together with his gifts of mind; and the history of his life, of his influence and of the passionate antagonisms which he aroused, becomes intelligible. For to a profound persuasion of the essential rightness of his aims and methods he added gifts which have never in English

196 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

history been found in combination – extraordinary physical strength and endurance, an absolutely unrivalled memory, dialectic of the highest order, and a copiousness of speech which on occasions could rise to eloquence of the most impressive kind. To these add a boundless capacity for work, a power of rapid acquisition beyond anything of which his colleagues had had experience, a personal magnetism which, when he chose to exercise it, was irresistible, and that rare combination, an equal grasp of principles and of details. Source E: A modern view of Gladstone

[Gladstone’s] addiction to retrenchment . . . weakened Britain’s ability to play the role of a great power which his love of peace tended to circumscribe anyway. In addition, Gladstone’s enthusiasm for domestic reform could prevent him from paying attention to serious situations abroad . . . ‘Gladstonism’ was idealism rampant, combined in a curious way with a strong legalistic vein. Foreign policy ought not to be about the pursuit of power, he believed, but the rule of law applied to international affairs. Gladstone also displayed a touching belief in the Concert of Europe as a mechanism for realising the new era in international affairs that he naively believed possible.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the meaning of the term ‘retrenchment’ (source E) (3) To what extent do sources B and C agree in their assessments of Disraeli’s aims? (5) How useful to an historian are obituaries such as those quoted in sources A and D? (5) How far is ‘Gladstonism’ as defined by John Lowe (source E) reflected in The Times obituary (source D)? (5) Discuss, using these sources and your own knowledge, the view that Disraeli’s most important achievements were in foreign policy, while Gladstone’s were at home. (12)

ANSWERS

a) ‘Retrenchment’ was the word that Gladstone used when he discussed the need to reduce taxation by conducting government in an economical way and to remove unnecessary expenditure from the budget. He hoped to apply this in particular to defence spending. b) The sources agree that imperial and foreign affairs were of much greater importance in Disraeli’s eyes than domestic matters, which he was happy to leave to others. Both accept that the growth of Empire was ‘not necessarily’ (source C) important to Disraeli; indeed, Source B puts the point more strongly when it states that he was ‘not interested’ in expansion in the tropics. They differ, however, in identifying the main focus of Disraeli’s concern, since source C suggests that he was concerned with Britain’s ‘just position in Europe’ as well as in the wider world, seen as the focus by source B. Both sources refer to the concept of a ‘world role’ for Britain, although neither source specifies the importance of world trade to Britain’s economy and thus the need

SOURCES • 197

which the raw materials and markets of Empire filled. Both make clear that he saw the importance of Empire in the abstract, rather than the details of individual territories and issues. c) Obituaries in ‘quality’ newspapers such as The Times are regarded by many historians as useful sources. Prepared during the lifetime of their subject, they are expected to contain accurate details and to reflect the atmosphere and attitudes of the educated readership at the time of the death. They are generally supposed to be neutral, or to aim at a kind of balance. This balance will not, however, necessarily be complete: these two obituaries, set side by side, clearly demonstrate the bias towards Gladstone of the editorial staff of the time. Both refer in passing to criticisms which might be made of their subjects, but the Gladstone obituary has far less to say about the faults and failings of the dead man than Disraeli’s. The picture that emerges paints Gladstone as the more honest and principled, and Disraeli as the more polished actor upon the political stage. An obituary is, however, unlikely to be a brutal attack on the reputation of its dead subject; as the Latin tag popular at the time de mortuis nil nisi bonum (say nothing of the dead unless it is good) suggests, obituaries are not the place for hostile attacks on the deceased. Thus the historian will always be offered a less incisive account of a life in an obituary than might be expected in straightforward newspaper reporting of the time. An obituary is useful, but needs to be evaluated in the light of other evidence. d) ‘Gladstonism’ is defined as idealism combined with legalism. Lowe suggests that Gladstone, perhaps naively, thought that foreign affairs could be conducted according to ethical principles and that laws could be applied to international issues as they were within domestic issues. The obituary, source D, refers to his sense of morality, his religion and his conviction in matters of principle, but has a much more positive view of his strengths. Where source E suggests that he achieved less than he might, the obituary adds to the definition of Gladstonism a capacity for hard and efficient work and a commitment to carrying out the ideals which he held. The combination of a grasp of detail and an ability to acquire and understand information creates a different picture from that of an idealist who was not attentive to detail. If Gladstonism in source E appears to be standing in the way of useful action, the ‘personal magnetism’ and ‘physical strength and endurance’ of the obituary offer, on the contrary, an indication that what Gladstone did above all was to achieve his aims. e) Disraeli certainly regarded the British Empire as extremely important to Britain’s world role, and in this his views differed radically from Gladstone’s. As far as Gladstone was concerned, the Empire could be more of a drain on resources than a benefit, and his attitude can be seen over issues like the siege of Khartoum, 1885, and the preference for negotiation, as in the Alabama arbitration of his first ministry. To judge by the two obituaries from The Times, however, neither statesman would be remembered for his foreign interests, but rather for his leadership of his party and conduct in the House of Commons. Both, of course, achieved a substantial programming of domestic reforms, Disraeli by authorising his home secretary, Richard Cross, to develop wideranging changes to the housing and working lives of the poor, and Gladstone by leading administrations devoted to improvement. It would be perverse, looking at the reforms of 1874–80, to consider Disraeli’s work abroad as his main achievement. Disraeli and Gladstone each presided over significant extensions of the franchise: the Conservatives enfranchised, effectively, all urban working men, solely because of Disraeli’s dominating performance in the Commons. Gladstone’s acts, of 1884–5, were merely providing the justice of a similar franchise for the rural working classes.

198 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Both men played significant parts in international affairs. Both, after all, were involved in Congresses in Berlin: the first, from which Disraeli brought back ‘peace with honour’ in 1878, concerned the Balkans. The second, in 1884–5, laid down the protocols by which the scramble for Africa was to be conducted: it was the non-imperialist government of Gladstone which helped to drive this process of regulation forward. Source E suggests that Gladstone’s anxiety for economically prudent measures reduced his ability to achieve major advances in Britain’s role abroad. But his principles were sound and, to a modern view, attractive: he was against annexations – as compared to Disraeli who, according to both sources B and C was only against ‘unnecessary’ annexations – and believed that the process of international consultation was the ethical way to conduct foreign policy, even if it made him unpopular. His reluctance to encourage imperial adventurers meant that he was branded as the murderer of Gordon when the rescue force he reluctantly sent arrived too late to save the disobedient general. Disraeli, in contrast, was high-handed in the extreme, committing the British to the enormous expenditure of the Suez Canal shares without even consulting Parliament. The reputation of both men rests, in the modern world, more on their domestic achievements than those abroad, not least because Britain was enjoying a period of peace, aside from minor colonial skirmishes. Modern disapproval of imperialism may also help to ensure that the focus is on the social and political reforms at home rather than on adventuring abroad. But Gladstone’s attempts to introduce a moral and legalistic framework into the conduct of foreign affairs is a significant aim. Disraeli’s name is always associated with the Victorian ideal of Empire, although its full flourish occurred well after his death, but the home achievements of his government were no less significant. These sources do not mention the issue which most strongly occupied Gladstone’s time and anxiety, namely the issue of Home Rule in Ireland. He would have argued that this policy brought together all his principles: the need to give the voters what they clearly demanded; the need to work by discussion and negotiation, rather than by force, and the imperative to do what was right. Disraeli, not particularly interested in Ireland, would have argued, had the issue arisen, that the position of Britain in the world was of paramount importance and that everything else should take second place to it.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, OR FOR AQA, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d)

Explain why Gladstone’s belief in the Concert of Europe (source E) is described as ‘naive’. How neutral, and how reliable, do you find the two obituaries, sources A and D? To what extent do the two modern historians (sources B and C) agree on Disraeli’s aims both at home and abroad? Use these sources and your own knowledge to discuss which of these two men more deserves the title of a ‘great prime minister’.

(10) (25) (25) (60)

SOURCES • 199

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE A a) b) c)

In your own words, sum up the positive and negative points which The Times makes about Disraeli. Give a brief account of the career of Disraeli. Discuss, with examples, the validity of the statement that Disraeli ‘added many remarkable pages to the history of English Conservatism’.

(5) (7)

(18)

Parts of the three modern sources, B, C and E, may also be used as a stimulus for the kind of question set in AQA examinations.

2. Issues in foreign policy Source F: The Times, 10 July 1867, p. 8

It is certainly a strange thing to be recorded that the envoy, the consul and several of the subjects of this great country, which counts its soldiers here and in India by hundreds of thousands, and whose navy wanders over the world, should be kept year after year in durance by a more than semi-barbarous African prince . . . We do not wonder that people both at home and in the East should be calling out for an expedition to Abyssinia, on the ground that not only is it base and cruel to leave our unfortunate countrymen in the hands of the so-called emperor or King Theodore, but that our national reputation suffers by thus seeming to shrink from a contest. Source G: Disraeli on the Suez Canal shares, House of Commons, 8 February 1876

Some may take an economical view of the subject, some may take a commercial view, some may take a peaceful view, some may take a warlike view of it; but of this I feel persuaded – and I speak with confidence – that when I appeal to the House of Commons for their vote, they will agree with the country, that this was a purchase which was necessary to maintain the Empire, and which favours to every degree the policy which this country ought to sustain. Source H: Gladstone writing on events in Bulgaria

We now know in detail that there have been perpetrated . . . crimes and outrages so vast in scale as to exceed all modern example, and so utterly vile and so fierce in character, that it passes the power of heart to conceive and of tongue and pen adequately to describe them. These are the Bulgarian horrors . . . murdering, burning, impaling, roasting men and women and children indiscriminately . . . The matter has become too painfully real for us to be scared by the hobgoblin of Russia . . . Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely by carrying off themselves . . . There is not a criminal in a European gaol, there is not a cannibal in the South Sea islands, whose indignation would not arise and overboil at the recital of that which has been done.

200 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94 Source I: A twentieth-century view of European affairs

Bismarck’s support of Austria-Hungary at the Congress of Berlin, though it meant alienation of the Russians, was thus unavoidable. The purpose of the Dual Alliance of 1879 was to give substance, in view of Russian hostility, to his previously announced intention of being able to resist any Russian attempt to destroy Austria-Hungary as a great power. So anxious was he to guarantee the Habsburgs that he even yielded when Count Andrassy refused to give him his desired quid pro quo of a Habsburg promise to assist Germany against France. As it stood, therefore, the Dual Alliance gave the Habsburgs complete protection, since Russia was their only enemy; but it gave Germany only incomplete protection since Austria-Hungary was not committed to assisting Germany against France.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER. THEY MAY ALSO BE ADAPTED TO THE PATTERN OF THE AQA EXAMINATION a) b) c) d)

Study source G. Explain what ‘economical’, ‘commercial’, ‘peaceful’, and ‘warlike’ views of the ‘purchase’ might have been. How convincing are the arguments put forward by The Times (source F) in favour of ‘an expedition to Abyssinia’? How successful do you find Gladstone’s pamphlet (source H) as a piece of propaganda? ‘Foreign policy in this period was driven by public opinion.’ Make use of these sources as well as your own knowledge to demonstrate how accurate you consider this statement to be.

(10) (25) (25)

(60)

ANSWERS

a) The economical view of the purchase would have concerned the probable return on the shares once they were in British hands. The Suez Canal had, in its short life, become crucial to the East–West trade, and it could be assumed that there would always be demand for the route. Similarly, the commercial view was that British trade with the East was so dependent on the canal that it would be disastrous for it to fall entirely into the hands of a hostile power, such as France. A peaceful view might well be that trade binds the world together and that the canal therefore needed to be in the hands of a trading nation such as Britain. Finally, the warlike view would have concerned the future defence of British lands abroad. If it became necessary to send reinforcements to the army in India, or to defend British interests further East, as had happened and would happen again over British trade with China, it was obviously essential that the rapid route eastwards, via the Mediterranean and Red Seas, should be freely available to the Royal Navy. b) The Times puts forward two arguments in favour of an expedition to Ethiopia: first, that it is ‘base and cruel’ to leave British citizens in the hands of King Theodore and, second, that it is harmful to British prestige abroad for the Ethiopians to be able to do this unpunished. Both arguments appealed to aspects of British public opinion which were to become ever stronger during

SOURCES • 201

the half century leading up to the Great War. The description of the Ethiopian king as a ‘more than semi-barbarous African prince’ is designed to turn the British officials into martyrs, ignoring their uninvited presence in Addis Ababa and the high-handed behaviour which had led to their arrest. Giving them the titles of envoy and consul implies a level of diplomatic status which could only be assured as a result of negotiation and discussion which had not been completed. The use of the phrase ‘so-called Emperor’ is a way of undervaluing the claims of the emperor of Abyssinia to trace his throne back to the days of King Solomon. It is hard to imagine the newspaper being similarly indignant if foreign officials had behaved in this way and had been imprisoned in London. The second argument, that of maintaining Britain’s international prestige abroad, also touched a chord with the public. The overstated description of Britain’s power sets the scene. It might be true that there were ‘hundreds of thousands’ of soldiers in India, but these men were not readily available for imperialist adventures in the centre of Africa, as the ‘mutiny’ a mere ten years before had shown. Nor did the Royal Navy particularly ‘wander over the world’, after years of cuts and uncertainties over the application of new technologies. Finally, it is not entirely clear how the strength of the navy could have been deployed in the inland country of Ethiopia. In the context of mid-nineteenth-century world views, the arguments put forward might have been convincing to the British public. The flowing prose and grandiose description of British power might have found avid readers amongst opinion formers in Britain. Certainly, a simple disciplinary action against a much inferior military power was an attractive proposition to the government, although it did not prevent them losing the election which followed. c) The purpose of Gladstone’s pamphlet was certainly propaganda. He hoped that British public opinion would force Disraeli’s government to reverse its traditional pro-Turkish policy and go to war to compel the sultan to introduce reforms and to alter for all time his treatment of his Christian and increasingly insurrectionary Balkan subjects. His pamphlet was addressed at an audience already shocked by stories coming out of Bulgaria about the activities of the Turkish irregular forces, the Bashi Bazouks, and he knew how to play upon their feelings. His summary of the ‘murdering, burning, impaling, roasting men and women and children indiscriminately’ was enough for each reader to imagine the events and the Shakespearean tone added stature to what he wrote. It was sufficient to remind people that they ‘know in detail’ what had occurred. The statement that it ‘passes the power of heart to conceive and of tongue and pen adequately to describe them’ has a ring of Macbeth (‘tongue nor eye cannot conceive nor name thee’). Gladstone then moves to the political issue: that the excuse for allowing the Turks to commit these atrocities unpunished was because of ‘the hobgoblin of Russia’ and that this policy had become untenable. His recommendation, that the Turks should remove themselves from the Balkans, is not one which would have been approved by British traders or by the Foreign Office, but it was a powerful statement. The final extract quoted here claims the support of world-wide opinion, suggesting that even criminals in European gaols would be outraged at what had taken place and that the most ‘uncivilised’ people imaginable, cannibals in some mythical South Sea kingdom, would be equally shocked. The burning and mutilating of women and children, those staples of atrocity stories through the ages, are deployed with a convincing passion, and the pamphlet found itself in tune with the

202 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

popular mood. It is worth recalling, however, that the popular mood was a fickle one, and the anti-Turkish mood soon reverted to the more habitual anti-Russian attitude when the Russian attack on Plevna was met with Turkish heroism. Gladstone’s propaganda was effective and convincing only as long as it matched the views already held by his readers. d) It is certainly true to say that the public was interested in foreign affairs at this time. The growing sales of popular newspapers and the increasing frequency with which music hall artistes joked and sang about events abroad demonstrates this. On the whole, however, the views of the people were responsive to rather than directive of government policy. The attitude exemplified in source F, that a force should be sent to deal with impertinent foreigners who misused British people, was in tune with the British mood. Similar policies were accepted with approval in the Ashanti Wars of 1873–4, in the attack on Afghanistan and in the use of force to end the rebellion in Egypt in 1881. On the other hand, public opinion was volatile, as can be seen in the initial favourable reaction to ‘taking on the Zulus’, which changed to shock when the first confrontation, at Isandlwhana, ended in a defeat for the British. There were some aspects of foreign policy in which public opinion played no part until matters were settled. The purchase of the Suez Canal shares, referred to in source G, was kept secret even from Parliament, but when the news became public, the general view was that it was a sound, if unconstitutional, decision, safeguarding the route to India and, perhaps more importantly, ensuring that the French did not gain even a momentary benefit from the bankruptcy of the khedive. The Royal Titles Act of the same year appears to have been met with scepticism by some newspapers, but there was an element of pride among the public that Britain, like Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, should also be ruled by an imperial monarch. A problem with relying on public opinion to drive foreign policy is that public opinion is notoriously changeable. Source H reflects one of the more volatile periods in British public opinion. At first, Gladstone’s pamphlet both mirrored and helped to form the public mood, that the Turks were evil and tyrannical and that the sultan and his irregular troops should ‘carry themselves off’. There were collections for the poor Bulgarian victims of Turkish atrocities and high levels of indignation. The Russian attack on Plevna rapidly reversed the public view, however, and within a short period after the revelation of the gallant defence by the Turks, the music halls rang to the song which coined the word ‘jingo’: public opinion was determined that ‘the Russians shall not have Constantinople.’ The same public which was reluctant to see public money spent on the army was equally capable of making a hero out of a soldier like the romantic General Gordon. Ignoring the fact that he had disobeyed orders to withdraw all troops in the Sudan to a line north of Wadi Halfa, the public, or at least the headline writers, warmed to his heroic and – except for the ordinary soldiers trapped by his bravado – lonely stand against the fanatical followers of the Mahdi. They reacted furiously when the rescue expedition so grudgingly sent by Gladstone failed to arrive in time to rescue Gordon from his own heroism. As far as Europe was concerned, public opinion appears to have been indifferent. Some industrialists warned of the threat of a secure and protected internal market for German goods within the newly unified Germany, but the British public was confident in the success of Britain and unmoved

SOURCES • 203

by alliances and developments between the foreign peoples of Europe. The patronising indifference of British people to the rest of the world is echoed in the references to the king of Abyssinia in source F and to the reference to cannibals in Gladstone’s pamphlet. Foreigners were not important to the Englishman. There was a passing interest in the annexation of lands abroad, though the only deep interest came with the discovery of gold in the Rand and the resultant ‘rush’ to South Africa of 1886. The annexation of Burma (Myanmar) in the same year passed virtually unnoticed. Despite the fact that most adult men had the right to vote, the views of the general population were not significant when it came to the formation of foreign policy. It is possible that the arguments against empire expressed by Gladstone at the election of 1880 swayed some voters, but it is more likely that, after seven years, many simply voted for change. And, in the days before opinion polls and ‘phone-ins’, it would have been difficult for politicians to discover, let alone take account of, public opinion, just as it is impossible for historians to discover, except in very exceptional circumstances like the Balkan crisis of 1877–8 or the siege of Khartoum, what ‘the people’ of the 1870s and 1880s thought about foreign policy.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the context of The Times article (source F). (3) Compare the tone and purpose of Disraeli’s speech (source G) with that of Gladstone’s pamphlet (source H). (5) What do sources F, G and H tell you about British attitudes to peoples overseas? (5) How far does source E help to explain why Britain was more concerned with the Empire than with Europe at this time? (5) Do these sources demonstrate the extent to which British policy in this period was influenced by fear of ‘the hobgoblin of Russia’ (source H)? (12)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE E a) b) c)

Explain in your own words the terms of the Dual Alliance. Summarise what was agreed at the Congress of Berlin, 1878. To what extent and for what reasons was Britain concerned in the relationships between Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and France?

(5) (7) (18)

204 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

Part 4: Historical skills 1. A formal debate about the Secret Ballot Act This house believes that the Secret Ballot Act of 1872 was an essential and overdue step towards true democracy

You are going to prepare and stage a formal debate on the subject of the secret ballot. Formal debates always follow a traditional form which continues to have rather a nineteenth-century feel, even today. For those of you who have never tried a formal debate, here are the key elements: • •

• • •

The topic, known as the ‘motion’, takes the form of a statement with which the people present must agree or disagree. So it is phrased like this: ‘This house considers/believes/prefers . . .’ A chairperson controls and organises the debate, and all speeches, questions and comments go ‘through the chair’. This is, of course, designed to ensure an orderly discussion. Despite what you may observe in the House of Commons, it is normal for the speakers in this kind of formal debate to be listened to without heckling or interruption. Each side in the debate has (usually) two speakers: the main speaker and a ‘seconder’ for each side. When the four main speakers have had their say, the chair will invite contributions from ‘the floor’ or audience: until then, members of the audience will be expected to remain silent. The order of the debate, typically, is as follows: A1. A2. A3. B1.

B2. B3.

C.

D1. D2. E.

The speaker welcomes everyone and states what the motion is. The chair introduces the proposer and seconder of the motion. The two speakers for the opposition are then introduced. The proposer now puts forward arguments in favour of the motion. The speech should begin ‘Mr Chairman, or Madam Chairwoman’ and should probably make three or four key points, finishing with an appeal to the house to support the motion. The chair then calls on the opposition main speaker, who puts forward his arguments in the same way, ending by requesting the audience to oppose the motion. Next, the chair calls the seconders, first of the proposition and then of the opposition, to make their speeches. These are usually shorter than those of the principal speakers, but should make a couple of additional points and also take the opportunity to deal with any issues or arguments used by the other side. Now, the chair invites comments ‘from the floor’, stressing the requirement that all remarks should be addressed to the chair. How long this phase of the debate lasts depends on the interest of the audience and the tolerance of the chair. ‘I now call upon the opposer to sum up the arguments against the motion’ is the phrase that ends the floor contributions. The proposer then has the last chance to appeal to the audience. Finally the chair calls for a vote, counting those in favour, those against and those who have abstained. The chair then declares whether the motion has been ‘carried’ or ‘defeated’.

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 205

You need to identify two pairs of speakers, one to propose and one to oppose the motion. Each pair should work together to ensure that they cover all the relevant points without repeating each other’s arguments. A chairperson should also be chosen. The audience should think through their own ideas on the subject, so they can listen in a well-informed way. The main speeches should last about 5–7 minutes, and the seconders’ speeches around 3–4 minutes. The contributions from the floor will probably last about 5 minutes, and the summing up speeches no more than 2–3 minutes.

2. Research seminar: The British Empire By the 1890s, Britain’s empire extended around the globe; but of what practical use were these territories, coloured red on maps of the period and referred to, accurately and proudly, as ‘the empire on which the sun never sets’? Each of you (or you may choose to work in pairs) should take as your subject one of Britain’s overseas possessions and prepare a brief presentation for the rest of the group. Your presentation should include at least the following, although you may decide to extend your research further: • • • • • •

Geographical position Other geographical information: climate, population, main resources etc How long the territory had been British by the 1890s How the colonial government was organised Benefits to Britain Costs to Britain.

To ensure a balanced impression at the end of the exercise, at least one territory should be chosen from each of the following groups: •

The ‘White’ colonies:

•

Africa:

•

East Asia:

•

The ‘New World’:

•

India

Australia New Zealand Canada South Africa Egypt Nigeria Uganda Somaliland Gold Coast Kenya Malaya (including Singapore) Papua Hong Kong Jamaica British Guiana (Guyana) Trinidad

206 • GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI, 1868–94

General reference sources that will have helpful information include the government websites of each country, which may have some historical information, a detailed atlas and encyclopaedias.

References for Chapter 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Quoted in P. Magnus, Gladstone, An Autobiography, John Murray, London, 1954, p. 221 Quoted in John Lowe, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 68 Norman McCord, British History 1815–1906, OUP, Oxford, 1991, p. 267 Quoted in The Guardian, 25 May 1989 Sir Ian Gilmour, Inside Right, Quartet Books, London, 1978, p. 86 John K. Walton, Disraeli, Routledge, London, 1990, p. 4 P.R. Ghosh, Style and Substance in Disraelian Social Reform, in P.J. Waller (ed.), Politics and Social Change in Modern Britain, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1987 L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, p. 65 Quoted in Robert Blake, Disraeli, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1996, p. 523 G. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, John Murray, London, 1920, vol. 5 John Lowe, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 74 Jeremy Smith, The Taming of Democracy; The Conservative Party 1880–1924, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1997, p. 29 Colin Matthew, Gladstone 1809–1898, OUP, Oxford, 1997 C.C. Eldridge, England’s Mission: The Imperial Idea in the Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1868–1880, Macmillan, London, 1973 G.M. Young and W.D. Handcock (ed.), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 186 Bruce Coleman, Conservatism and the Conservative Party in Nineteenth Century Britain, Arnold, London, 1988, p. 136

Sources A. The Times, 20 April 1881 B. C.C. Eldridge, England’s Mission, Macmillan, London, 1973, pp. 180–1 C. Graham D. Goodlad, British Foreign and Imperial Policy 1865–1919, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 11 D. The Times, 20 May 1898 E. John Lowe, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 72 F. The Times, 10 July 1867 G. Hansard 3/CCXXVII/102 H. W.E. Gladstone, The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, John Murray, London, 1876 I. L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Routledge, London, 1955, p. 123

Chapter 6

The Irish Question, 1845–1921

208 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

This chapter surveys the history of Ireland from the famine of 1845 to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1921.

Historical background Ireland after the Act of Union The famine and its after-effects The Fenian Campaign Gladstone and Ireland, 1868–74 Parnell and the Land League The Kilmainham Treaty and the Phoenix Park murders The effects of the third Parliamentary Reform Act, 1884–5 The first Home Rule Bill 1886 Ireland and the Conservatives, 1886–92 New organisations The third Home Rule Bill Sir Edward Carson (1854–1935) and the Ulster struggle The question of partition Ireland and the Great War The Easter Rising and its effects British retaliation and the rise of Sinn

Essays 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The famine The Fenians and American influence Gladstone and Ireland The career of Parnell The Home Rule Bills The Conservatives and Land Laws in Ireland The Protestants and the Unionists Ireland, the Great War and the Easter Rising 1916 Ireland 1918–21

Sources 1. 2.

The issues underlying the first Home Rule Bill The question of Ulster, 1912–14

Féin

The Daíl Éireann The armed struggle 1919–21 Conclusion

Historical skills 1.

‘SWOT’ exercise.

THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921 • 209

Chronology 1845–7 1848–9 1850 1858 1864 1867 1870 1870 1879 1881 1881 1882 1885 1886 1888 1890 1891 1893 1898 1903 1903 1905 1912 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1921

Famine in Ireland Encumbered Estates Act, facilitating the purchase of bankrupt estates Establishment of the Tenants’ League Establishment of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (Fenians) by James Stephens National Catholic Association to encourage non-payment of tithe Fenian attacks in Chester, London and Manchester First Irish Land Act Formation of the Land League Appointment of Parnell as president of the Irish Land League The second Irish Land Act providing the ‘Three Fs’ Arrest of Parnell and the Kilmainham Treaty Phoenix Park murders Ashbourne’s Land Purchase Act First Home Rule Bill: defeated in the Commons Land Purchase Act O’Shea’s divorce case Death of Parnell Defeat of second Home Rule Bill in the Lords Local Government Act providing elected county councils in Ireland Establishment of the Independent Orange Order Wyndham’s Land Purchase Act Foundation of Sinn Féin Ulster’s Solemn League and Covenant signed by 250,000 people Third Home Rule Bill introduced in Commons and certain to pass Third Home Rule Act passed but suspended on outbreak of war Easter Rising Establishment of Daíl Éireann by Sinn Féin MPs boycotting Westminster Establishment of Home Rule Assemblies in Dublin and Belfast Establishment of the Irish Free State

210 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

Part 1: Historical background Ireland after the Act of Union Before the 1840s famine Ireland had enjoyed more than a decade of comparative peace. The 1801 Act of Union had been followed by a determined campaign to achieve the Roman Catholic Emancipation promised by Pitt but denied by the King’s intervention. With the 1829 Emancipation Act, political and economic life in Ireland achieved a kind of normality. The demand to repeal the Act of Union never achieved mass support, and the 1830s agricultural recovery reduced the threat of agrarian violence by groups such as the Whiteboys. Conciliatory measures towards the Catholic Church, such as the increased grant to Maynooth Seminary in 1845, were unpopular with the Irish protestants, but suggested that co-operation could be the way forward. On the other hand, with hindsight we can see that there were potentially disastrous developments in the economy and particularly the land holdings of Ireland, as holdings became smaller and reliance on a single crop, the potato, became greater.

The Famine and its after-effects When the potato crop was hit by disease, famine was almost inevitable. Peel’s insistence on repealing the Corn Laws had split his party without radically improving the situation in Ireland. Indeed, in the following years, what happened in Ireland may, without exaggeration, be called a catastrophe. In 1962, A.J.P. Taylor wrote a review article for the New Statesman that controversially accused the British government of killing two million Irish people, using the phrase ‘All Ireland was a Belsen’. Emigration also greatly reduced the population. If it is possible to see any benefit arising from the disaster of the famine, it is that the population’s decline enabled land holdings to be increased and farming to establish itself gradually in more balanced form. More important, however, was the feeling of bitterness resulting from London’s handling of the disaster, which crystallised in many Irish people’s minds both at home and abroad the need for action to end the worst abuses arising from the Union. Since landlords were perceived as English, protestant and absentee, one strand of this struggle was the campaign for tenants’ rights. The Tenants’ League, established in 1850, was one of many new groups founded in Ireland after the famine. While the government slowly began to introduce legislation to deal with Ireland’s most serious problems, some of the Irish were beginning to organise, and some wanted more than mere land rights.

The Fenian campaign The Fenians, as members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) were known, did little until 1865. But the end of the Civil War in the United States changed that and suddenly James Stephens, founder of the Fenians, had available to him both weapons and military advisers to back up the funds coming in from Irish Americans. Although the armed struggle of the 1860s was not

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 211

successful, it radically changed the political landscape in Ireland and in Britain. The IRB ceased to exist in 1868, partly because of the horror their violent methods caused within the Catholic Church and the majority of the Irish people. But they had tapped into the growing nationalism affecting all Europe – particularly visible in the Balkans at this time – and had forced the new prime minister of 1868 (Gladstone) to consider the whole issue of Ireland afresh.

Gladstone and Ireland, 1868–74 Because of the predominantly rural nature of Ireland, the Electoral Reform Act of 1867 had made little difference to the franchise: only 4.4 per cent of Irishmen were entitled to vote at the 1868 election. In the absence of a popular vote, the Fenian actions were the indication which encouraged Gladstone to declare his ‘mission to pacify Ireland’. His view was that if the grievances of Irish people could be justly dealt with, the Union would survive, but his attempts to handle the issues of land and religion were not enough to placate the Irish. Indeed, Gladstone’s first efforts to solve the Irish issue by redress of grievances were a failure, as the election of members of the Home Rule League to Parliament in 1874 confirmed. The newly elected ‘Home Rule’ MPs were, however, unable to agree precisely what they meant by Home Rule. The most they agreed upon was the need to keep the Irish Question always on the agenda, and they did this by disrupting Parliament wherever necessary. It was in this uncertain atmosphere that the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell was to be decisive, not least because he was able to work successfully with the Land League.

Parnell and the Land League After some years of comparative prosperity, Ireland was affected by agricultural depression in the 1870s; in many parts of Ireland, tenants were unable to pay their rent and so faced eviction. The National Land League was formed to protect tenants by resisting payment of rents perceived as too high and preventing new tenants taking over the holdings of evicted families. In October 1879, Parnell became president of the League (despite his status as a landlord) and thus the issue of land reform became closely linked with the campaign for Home Rule. In the 1880 election, 63 MPs were elected from the Home Rule Association, with Parnell as their leader. Gladstone, continuing his policy of addressing Irish grievances, introduced the far-reaching second Irish Land Act, which became law in 1881, but it was not enough for the Home Rulers. Any moderate reform could be seen as an attempt to dilute their message, just as the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia were to reject moderate measures in their struggle for total revolution. The continuation of the Land League’s campaign of intimidation, rent strikes and violence led to the passing of the Peace Preservation Act, which allowed detention without trial, and in October 1881 Parnell was arrested.

212 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921 Figure 6.1 Charles Stewart Parnell in gaol with John Dillon, 1881, at the time of the Kilmainham Treaty (Parnell is the central figure in the picture)

The Kilmainham Treaty and the Phoenix Park murders Parnell’s arrest led to such outcry in Ireland, however, that the so-called Kilmainham Treaty was agreed. In return for his release (in May 1882) and the provision of financial assistance for tenants in arrears, Parnell agreed that the Fair Rent Tribunals would be recognised and that the violence would stop. The positive atmosphere was shattered, however, by the Phoenix Park murders: on 6 May 1882, the chief secretary and under secretary for Ireland were assassinated in Phoenix Park, Dublin by a group calling themselves ‘The Invincibles’. Parnell condemned the murders, some members of the Invincibles were hanged and others were sentenced to penal servitude for life. In addition, the Irish Coercion Act was passed, legalising imprisonment on suspicion alone.

The effects of the third Parliamentary Reform Act, 1884–5 Probably the most important development for Ireland of the second Gladstone ministry was the third Parliamentary Reform Act, which enfranchised county householders and thus almost all Irish men. Ireland also benefited because there was no radical redistribution of seats in Ireland, so that Ireland was over-represented in terms of its post-famine population. There was little gratitude: the Irish Nationalists’ obstruction of Liberal attempts to renew the Crimes Act resulted in a Conservative government under Salisbury, and thus Parnell found himself working with a party completely disinclined to revise the Act of Union. But Salisbury’s was a minority government and an election was held in November 1885 with remarkable results: Liberals Conservatives Irish Nationalist

333 seats, none at all in Ireland 250 seats, including 16 in Ulster and the 2 Seats for Dublin University 86 seats, one in Liverpool and the rest in Ireland

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 213

The election result confirmed that Ireland was determined to end the 1801 Union. There might be the risk that Ireland would just secede: could Britain contemplate using force to compel Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? Gladstone became convinced of the need to offer Home Rule, and Parnell brought the Irish Home Rulers behind him, forcing Salisbury’s resignation (January 1886) and the return of Gladstone, committed to introducing Home Rule.

The first Home Rule Bill 1886 The Bill would have established an Irish Parliament under the imperial government, and under the Crown, with no Irish representatives at Westminster. This would have provided less autonomy than was enjoyed by the Dominions within the British Empire. There was, however, great hostility from the right wing of the Liberal Party, and when the vote was taken, 93 Liberals voted with the opposition, although the results, 313 for the measure and 343 against, indicate other abstentions or absences in the government and Irish side. An election was unavoidable, and the results were disastrous for Gladstone, the Liberals and Parnell. The Liberals won 191 seats, against the Conservatives’ 314 (including 72 Liberal Unionists). The Irish Nationalists gained their largest number so far, 86, but Parnell was unable to use this number to extract concessions from the Conservatives, since he was forced to support the ‘Home Rule’ party, the Liberals. In any case, his life was descending into scandal and he was aware that he had failed to achieve either Home Rule or a serious range of reforms; he was a disappointed man at his death in October 1891.

Ireland and the Conservatives, 1886–92 The Conservative view was that a combination of firm government and redressed grievances would end the demand for Home Rule. When Gladstone was able to form a government in 1892, he attempted Home Rule again, but its defeat in the House of Lords marked the end of his career; his successor, Lord Rosebery, had no interest in Ireland. The Conservatives returned in 1896 and attempted to ‘kill Home Rule with kindness’, introducing a series of important reforms. Land Acts of 1897 and 1903 effectively ended the Protestant Ascendancy by enabling any tenant who desired to purchase his holding. The Conservatives hoped that this would end the demand for Home Rule. The Nationalists on the other hand expected Home Rule to be more easily attained, since there was no vested interest (other than Protestantism) which would stand against it.

New organisations During the last years of the nineteenth century, various non-political organisations were established which had a considerable impact on Irish politics. The Irish Trade Union Congress, founded in 1894, had 60,000 affiliated workers by 1900, including many from the Ulster towns. A branch of the Independent Labour Party formed in Belfast in 1893, and it was there that James Connolly set up the Irish Socialist Republican Party. Connolly became head of the Belfast branch of the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union in 1907. These organisations shared a common concern for the working and living conditions of ordinary people rather than the question of who

214 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

ruled. At the same time, organisations emerged which were interested in cultural issues. The question ‘what does it mean to be Irish?’ was asked by the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association, which respectively encouraged the study of the Gaelic language and traditional Irish sports such as hurling. Indeed, the Gaelic Athletic Association boycotted cricket matches. The one new political organisation, Sinn Féin, formed in 1905, had aims which were radical but not violent. Irish Unionism, meanwhile, was also establishing its identity, although this was increasingly an Ulster phenomenon as land purchase meant that few people in the rest of Ireland were concerned to maintain the Union.

The third Home Rule Bill The issue of Home Rule had faded into the background of British politics with the departure of Gladstone. The political aspirations of Nationalists were still strong, however, as shown by their substantial and steady representation in the House of Commons. The dispute between the Liberal government and the House of Lords (about which you will read more in Chapter 8) brought Home Rule back onto the agenda. The close results of the elections left the 82 Irish Nationalists holding the balance, and they demanded Home Rule. The Bill introduced on 11 April 1912 offered the kind of ‘devolution’ established in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa as part of transforming the Empire into Commonwealth. For John Redmond this was not enough; but more serious was the split within the cabinet, with an influential group – including Lloyd George, Edward Grey and Winston Churchill – demanding separate treatment for Ulster.

Sir Edward Carson (1854–1935) and the Ulster struggle Edward Carson rapidly emerged as the leader of Unionism in Ulster. Under his leadership young Ulstermen began drilling with guns, increasingly available since the Arms Act of 1906. In September 1912, Belfast Town Hall saw the Solemn League and Covenant signed by more than a quarter of a million Ulstermen, under the banner that William III had used at the Battle of the Boyne. While the Nationalists ridiculed the document and declared themselves ready to accept the ruling of the British Parliament, the Conservative party declared that the Constitution could not be changed without the full scrutiny of an unconstrained upper house, and thus Home Rule would be illegal.

The question of partition Randolph Churchill’s slogan of 1893, ‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right’, was now embodied in the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), under its commander in chief, General Richardson. The force was supplied with money, guns and expertise by the British League for the Support of Ulster (March 1913). It was never large – in September 1913, seven thousand paraded in honour of Carson – but its establishment demonstrated the determination of Ulster to reject Home Rule, and it was supported by other groups. The ill-timed order by cabinet members who led military ministries, notably Winston Churchill as first lord of the admiralty, to reinforce naval and military bases in Ulster suggested a plan to coerce the North into accepting Home Rule. On 20 March 1914, 60 officers at the Curragh army base resigned their commissions rather than go to reinforce

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 215 Figure 6.2 ‘The Non-Stop Car’ cartoon, Punch, 1916

positions in Ulster. At the same time, the Conservative leader, Andrew Bonar Law, publicly stated his view that if Ulster chose to reject Home Rule, they would not fight alone. Armed struggle seemed inevitable, and it is possible to imagine Asquith greeting the outbreak of the Great War with relief, as an excuse to suspend the Home Rule Act for the duration, while excluding the Six Counties.

Ireland and the Great War The invasion of Catholic Belgium by Germany produced a passionate response in Ireland and by spring 1915 over 50,000 Irishmen had joined the British Army, despite the IRB’s Anti-Enlistment Campaign. At the same time, Redmond committed the Irish Volunteer force to fight for king and Empire, and the war began to have a positive impact on the Irish economy, with industry and agriculture booming and an end to unemployment. To maintain the calm, the Conscription Act, which came into force in January 1916, did not apply in Ireland.

The Easter Rising and its effects On 24 April 1916, members of Sinn Féin and other groups began a rebellion against British rule in Dublin. The Easter Rising came as a complete surprise to people of all parties. During the six days of the Rising, virtually no other area rose. Much of the Dublin population was at the bank holiday races when the rising began, and they were not inspired by the news as it broke. The rebels were booed by the crowds after their arrest, partly because, of the 450 dead, over half were civilians caught in the fighting without wishing to be involved.

British Retaliation and the Rise of Sinn Féin The British government reacted dramatically in what Jeremy Smith describes as ‘perhaps the most disastrous policy change in the history of the Union’.1 Military law was enforced, with

216 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921 internments, hangings and bans on public meetings. As if this was not enough, in April 1918

conscription was extended to Ireland. Resistance was immediate, and spearheaded and controlled by Sinn Féin. The National Defence Fund helped those who resisted conscription, and a general strike paralysed Ireland on 23 April. Lord French, the new lord lieutenant and former supreme commander on the Western Front, arrested the Sinn Féin leaders, interned many sympathisers and ‘proclaimed’ Kerry and West Cork under the terms of the Riot Act. The effect was not at all what French hoped. Sinn Féin, driven underground, tightened up its organisation and became more radical, attracting IRB members like Michael Collins. Membership increased to 112,000 and the imprisoned Arthur Griffith was elected MP for East Cavan at a by-election.

The Daíl Éireann The November 1918 election was held under the new Redistribution and Franchise Act, which had trebled the number of voters. Sinn Féin’s 73 new MPs agreed to boycott Westminster, and their National Assembly, the Daíl Éireann, met on 21 January 1919. In April, the Daíl set up a cabinet, with de Valera as president, Michael Collins in charge of finance and Arthur Griffith as home secretary. Sinn Féin participated in the local elections in March 1920 and were surprised to win almost half the seats. Thus they became the legal local government in many areas. Figure 6.3 Eamon de Valera telling a meeting of Sinn Féin that they should prefer trenches in Ireland to trenches in Flanders, October 1917. Note the priests in the audience

ESSAYS • 217

The armed struggle 1919–21 The British government’s refusal to recognise the Daíl made an armed struggle certain. The IRA targeted the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) and, in doing so, provoked retaliation which caused the whole struggle to spiral. In an attempt to achieve normality, the British government went ahead with the delayed Home Rule Act, establishing in December 1920 two Home Rule Parliaments, one in Belfast and one in Dublin. In the south, having won all but four of the seats, Sinn Féin continued to meet as the Daíl. Increasingly, the RIC sheltered in heavily defended police stations, emerging only to attack the IRA in large numbers; the IRA, unpaid and short of ammunition, began to lose popularity with its own people as extortion and intimidation became their preferred methods. Therefore Sinn Féin welcomed and accepted the offer of a truce in July 1921. Although the truce required the British government to negotiate with an illegal organisation, the outcome was satisfactory: in December 1921, the 1801 Act of Union was repealed and The Irish Free State was given Dominion Status as a member of the Commonwealth and with a British governor general. Britain also held on to some naval bases in the south.

Conclusion The 1921 settlement ensured that at last the Westminster Parliament could cease to be concerned with Ireland, although issues remained which were to resurface throughout the twentieth century. Many historians suggest that at every stage in the struggle the problems could have been resolved had the British government been more willing to listen to the wishes of the Irish people. By the time the famine crisis had been addressed, land movement demands began to be heard; by the time the land issues had been resolved, political demands were being made. The Home Rule offer was deferred and delayed until it was not sufficient, and when partition came it failed to satisfy growing Irish national and republican aspirations.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts. Of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. The famine a) b)

What caused the famine of 1846–51? (15 marks) Is it true to say that the British government did all it could to ameliorate the disaster? (15 marks)

a) The Irish famine resulted from a combination of long-term developments and sudden and unexpected disease. Some historians would add that, had the British government acted more quickly and to better effect, there might have been hardship but not the appalling disaster which

218 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

caused A.J.P. Taylor, in 1962, to accuse them of killing two million Irish people. His phrase ‘All Ireland was a Belsen’ may be an exaggeration, but the deaths and misery caused by the famine were terrible. During the century before the potato blight outbreak, life had been difficult for Irish peasant farmers. The landlords had required increasing returns from their estates and rents had risen steadily. At the same time, a growing population had led to land shortages. Consequently these two factors had produced a great deal of subletting. This, in turn, had resulted in land holdings barely large enough to support the people who depended on them and a concentration on the only crop able to sustain a family. Potatoes are a very useful food crop, building, as Samuel Johnson had pointed out in the early eighteenth century, some of the strongest labourers and most beautiful women in Europe. But the dependence of the Irish population on the potato as the staple diet was – dangerously – almost absolute: an adult Irish man would eat ten pounds (almost 4.5 kilogrammes) of potatoes a day. Only in the Ulster counties of the north east was there anything like a balanced economy with growing industries and a range of imports. In these economic circumstance, the disease phytophthora infestans was bound to spell disaster. A form of botrytis, better known as ‘potato blight’, it turned potatoes, whether growing or in store, into balls of black slime. It is not known where the disease originated, though it seems likely to have come from South America, the original home of the potato, possibly carried in cargoes of guano, the nitrogen-rich bird-droppings in demand for fertiliser as methods of agriculture became more intensive. It is also possible that the disease came from the eastern states of the USA, where there had been outbreaks in 1843 and 1844. Blight was spread by spores, carried by the wind and pushed down into the soil by rain to penetrate the tubers below the ground. The disease was found in Irish potatoes for the first time during 1845, but at first there was cautious optimism, since planting had been up by 6 per cent, so that there were supplies in store, and in most of Ireland less than 30 per cent of the crop was diseased. This early hope proved to be misplaced. During 1846, the impact of the blight worsened. The average yield per acre, normally 8 tons, fell to less than a third of a ton. So desperate were the people that few seed potatoes were kept for the next year, and livestock numbers collapsed as farmers sold their pigs and other animals to pay for food. Liver fluke, which attacked sheep flocks in the following year, worsened the terrible situation. Where grain was produced, it could not be exported to raise money since there were people starving at home. Grain exports to England, which had stood at 514,000 tons in 1845, fell to 147,000 tons in 1847. How many died? In 1982, Joel Mokyr2 considered the question in the light of the unreliability of the census. When a whole family died, there would be no reporting of the death, and he considers that ‘averted pregnancies’ should also be counted, in a period of great population growth elsewhere in the British Isles. His calculation is of ‘excess mortality’, that is the number of people who died in excess of the normal death rate, which, in the period 1846–51, amounts to 1,082,000 or, with averted births added, 1,498,000. In Connaught, for example, the excess mortality rate was 40.4 per cent. This may be less than A.J.P. Taylor’s rounded number, but it remains a terrible number. We must therefore ask whether the government in Westminster did all that it could to prevent the deaths.

ESSAYS • 219

b) In political dogma terms the potato blight outbreak was an opportunity for Peel’s government. ‘Free trade’ was thought to be the best policy to ensure Britain’s domination of international markets, and import tariffs had been progressively removed by every government for the previous years, leaving the 1815 Corn Laws as the final remaining memorial to the days of protectionism. In order to make possible the importation of cheap wheat to replace or at least supplement the potato, Peel persuaded Parliament to repeal the Corn Laws. In doing so, he split his party, since the landed interest in the Conservative Party was afraid from the competition of cheap imports. Peel was forced to resign, and therefore it was the Liberals under Lord John Russell who had to deal with the much worse disaster of the following years. Even so, the repeal of the Corn Laws had little effect on starvation in Ireland, since the government did not have in place an organisational structure to enable them to buy and import grain from the international market. On the other hand, exportation of grain was not prohibited, since both Peel’s and Russell’s key doctrine was that of Free Trade. So, where grain was produced in Ireland, it might well be exported as if there was no famine at home. Peel’s government did supplement the potato crop with maize, imported from the USA and distributed from depots at a ration level of 1lb (500 grammes) per day. It was not popular with the Irish, who called it (from its lurid yellow colour) ‘Peel’s brimstone’. Although nutritious, it was not filling, and when inadequately cooked it gave rise to stomach upsets. Besides, it was not what they were accustomed to, a problem which is faced by aid agencies in the modern world when trying to feed the starving. Another aspect of political doctrine which affected the British government’s approach to the famine was the influence of the 1834 Poor Law. ‘Outdoor Relief’ was believed to be an even greater evil than hunger, and thus there were demands that people should only get help by entering the workhouse. As the disaster worsened in 1846 and 1847, soup kitchens were established in some areas, but they were closed down in September 1847 and the workhouses became the only source of relief. The government’s test for relief, that a claimant should not have over a quarter of an acre of land, meant that people were forced to give up their holdings in order to obtain food for their families. Peel also introduced a programme of public works to enable the Irish to earn money, and while this programme was not well administered, it did provide some income for an estimated 140,000 men. Russell’s government provided low interest loans, but there was opposition to this form of relief from businessmen who felt that their prices might be undercut by the government’s use of public labour. The government spent a total of £8.1 million on soup kitchens, public works and grain imports – we may compare this to the £69.3 million spent on the Crimean War in the next decade. Half of the £8.1 million was in the form of loans, although, in the event, the debt was cancelled by Lord Aberdeen’s government in 1853. James S. Donnelly Junior comments: ‘now the official responses to extreme occasions were murderous in their consequence, though not in their intentions.’3 The government’s actions may have saved some lives, but it would be reasonable to say that they did too little and what they did was done grudgingly and in line with regulations formulated for very different circumstances.

220 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

Government inaction was also a significant contribution to the Irish people’s misery. No attempt was made to protect tenants from eviction for non-payment of rent. A total of 200,000 families were evicted in 1849 and 1850, which probably amounted to over 800,000 individuals. The government might have predicted this and put in place funds to prevent these evictions, but governments were not accustomed to intervening in matters of private property. Less brutal landlords found that an ethical and economical way to repossess their land was to pay for the emigration of the tenant family. The government neither encouraged nor prevented this. In the decade following 1845, 2.1 million people left Ireland, compared to a previous annual average of about 50,000. While the majority went to the USA and Canada, a large number went to England and Scotland, as the census records show: Irish-born population of Britain Year 1841 1851 1861

England and Wales Scotland 289,404 126,321 519,959 207,367 601,634 204,083

The majority of these people were to be found in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, and many of them were in receipt of the outdoor relief which had been denied them in Ireland (40 per cent of recipients of outdoor relief in Liverpool during 1847–8 were Irish). This is not to suggest that the Irish were keen to live upon relief: many of them found work in building railways and in industry. It is interesting to note that over 30 per cent of all recruits who joined the British army in England between 1830 and 1870 were Irish-born. The British government’s failure to provide adequately either for the dying or the survivors, established close and lasting links between the homeland and the emigrants, especially those that went to the USA. Money was sent home by emigrants to families in Ireland; as later governments faced the Fenians and other groups armed and funded by Irish American money, they may have wished that their predecessors had done more to make such subsidies unnecessary. The money from the emigrants also assisted the recovery, and the gradually increasing prosperity of tenant farmers was one reason for their growing politicisation. One piece of useful legislation in 1849, the Encumbered Estates Act, made it easier to purchase bankrupt estates and thus allowed a larger number of Catholics to become landowners. Commissioners were appointed to authorise and oversee the sale of estates in Ireland to people who could make efficient use of them. By 1860, it is estimated that 10 per cent of land in Ireland had changed hands by this mechanism. In British county constituencies, landowners were voters, and future years were to see the effects of the famine in Westminster. Given the political climate of the 1840s and British prejudices against the Irish, it is perhaps not surprising that the government response to the tragedy of the famine was so limited and grudging. Britain was to reap the results of this failure for many decades to come.

ESSAYS • 221

a) b)

What were the effects of the famine of 1846–51? (30 marks) Consider the view that the famine ‘directed the form which Irish politics was to take for the next seventy years’. (60 marks)

The questions require you to deal first with the immediate effects of the famine and then with the more long-term effects. It is also necessary to decide the extent to which the famine brought about the other developments and movements within Irish politics: the attitude of the Irish American community? The terrorism of the Fenians? The growing strength of tenants’ associations and the Land League as holdings became more sustainable? The attitudes of successive British governments, perhaps influenced by guilt? A reasonable conclusion would be to consider whether, without the famine, the history of Ireland into the twentieth century would have been different.

2. The Fenians and American influence How did the aims and methods of the Fenians differ from those of the Irish Land League?

(90 marks)

The aims of the Land League were radically different from those of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Rather than seeking major political and social revolution, the aims of the Land League were, as suggested by its name, entirely connected with the issues of land holding in Ireland. While it is possible to see these as political, given the preponderance of English landowners in some parts of Ireland, and while the League came to be closely connected with the Home Rule movement, the initial aims were limited and focused, unlike those of the Fenians. The Fenians were members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, established by James Stephens in the USA in 1858. Part of the key membership were expatriate Irish Americans. Some had come from Ireland in the early years of American independence, but their numbers had grown radically as a result of the famine, and their anger had grown in proportion. The Brotherhood was partly a descendant of the Young Ireland Movement, and so could be linked with the Europe-wide revolutionary movements of 1848. Like these movements, their aims were a mixture of political and social, since they believed the two were closely linked. Politically they wanted not merely to end the Union with Britain as established by the act of 1801, but also to form a republican government. The Fenians’ hopes for widespread social change included putting the ownership of land back into the hands of those who worked it. But what made them even more radical was their belief that force was the way to achieve their aims. James Stephens was at first able to do little more than plot, but the end of the American Civil War made available not just armaments but also men with military experience and no gainful employment. Stephens made use of these men to train his Brotherhood and to supply arms for his plans in the North American continent, as well as in Ireland and England. Given that the British army had always recruited large numbers of Irishmen, it is not surprising that hundreds

222 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

of IRB surporters were to be found in its ranks. Nor, given the lack of practice that Stephens and his followers had had in conspiracy, is it remarkable that the planned rising of 1865 was broken up before it could begin, with many arrests. It was at this time that large numbers of Fenian sympathisers were removed from the army. The fear, among the British and American authorities, that there were well armed Fenians in the USA, was confirmed when, in May 1866, a grandiose plot was discovered, to invade Canada from the USA. This attack failed and the Fenian campaign again moved across the Atlantic. There were sufficient Fenian supporters in Liverpool and the surrounding area to mount an attack on Chester Castle in February 1867. When this failed, British power in Ireland became the target once more, and in March, the successful, if temporary, capture of the police station in Cork forced the authorities to recognise that the IRB were a serious threat. In September 1867, the Fenian campaign moved decisively into England. A police van in Manchester, containing IRB prisoners, was ambushed and the prisoners rescued. In the struggle, one policeman was killed. The British authorities dealt firmly with this crime, but the execution in November of all three men involved in the attack created the first heroes of the modern movement, who became known as the ‘Manchester Martyrs’. Fenians retaliated by bombing London’s Clerkenwell Gaol in December, which resulted in the deaths of twelve people, including members of the public. It also resulted, however, in the end of the Fenian movement as an effective weapon of Nationalist policy, since its violence lost it the support of the Catholic Church, without which no group in Ireland could hope to hold public approval. Thus the Fenians were a short-lived movement, but their actions encouraged Gladstone to take action to solve the problems of Ireland and some at least of their methods were adopted by the Land League. The problem of land holding in Ireland had already been recognised as an issue before the formation of the League. In 1870, Gladstone’s horror at the Fenians’ activities had led to the first Land Act, although this had, in the main, merely extended the kind of rights enjoyed by tenants in Ulster to the rest of Ireland. To be assured of compensation for eviction was a beginning, but since eviction for non-payment of rent was specifically excluded, it was easy for landlords to raise the rent and then to evict. And the growing agricultural depression in the 1870s made it hard for tenants to pay their rents. What had, however, been achieved was the proof that the Westminster Parliament could and would interfere between landlords and their tenants, and this was the specific key to the aims and success of the League. When, in October 1879, the Fenian Michael Davitt founded the National Land League in County Mayo, its initial aim was to force the extension of laws to protect tenants from the depredations of landlords and their agents. Unlike the IRB, it functioned entirely within Ireland, although it did accept money from Clan na Gael in the USA to assist its organisation and publicity and to enable it to carry out its plans. This money paid salaries for Irish MPs in Westminster. The League was never as revolutionary as the Fenians hoped it might be and was much less violent. During the 1880s, the leadership of the Land League condemned Fenian bomb atrocities. Moral pressure was its main weapon; tenants who refused to pay high rents and who were evicted as a result were supported with funds from the league, while the agents and landlords were ostracised in the way that has been given the name of Lord Erne’s agent, Captain Boycott. Any new tenant who took up the forfeited lease would be treated in the same way. Violence against landlords and new tenants and their property did occur, however, though seldom displaying the kind of bloodshed that the Fenians were prepared to use: animals might be maimed

ESSAYS • 223

and hay and straw stacks burned; some unpopular landlords awoke to find that overnight a grave had been dug in the middle of the manicured lawns of their homes. The fact that the League did not favour bombs and murder made it acceptable to the Catholic Church which had, after all, used similar non-violent methods in its own campaigns. As early as the 1840s, non-payment of tithe had been encouraged by Catholic priests, and peaceful protest was the preferred method of the National Association, set up in 1864 to promote denominational education and the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Ireland. A strength of the Land League was its leader, Charles Stewart Parnell, who was a member of the British establishment, and thus was able to speak with a convincing voice. He sat in the Westminster Parliament and, as a landowner himself, could hardly be accused of mindless attacks on the rights of property owners. His influence, as well as the steady determination of the tenant farmers, ensured the greatest difference between the League and the Fenians, namely that the League progressively achieved its aims. The second Land Act, which became law in 1881, provided the ‘three Fs’: Fair Rent, to be agreed by Land Tribunals; Fixity of Tenure, that is, that tenants could not be evicted unless they broke the terms of their lease; and Free Sale of the period remaining of a lease, provided the landlord did not object. While this act was a sensible approach to some problems of land tenure in Ireland, it satisfied few people: for property owners, it was an unacceptable infringement of their rights, and for the Land League, it was simply not enough. Continued campaigning and determination resulted in the Conservative Party finding a different and more permanent solution: the Land Purchase Acts beginning in 1885 and culminating in Wyndham’s Act of 1903 offered government loans to enable tenants to buy their land, thus removing ‘landlordism’ from the Irish political scene and effectively ending the Protestant Ascendancy over most of Ireland. Indeed, the repayments under the Wyndham scheme continued to be made without problems throughout the troubles of the 1920s, until finally written off by the Irish government in 1938. The Irish Land League achieved its initial aims within 25 years of its establishment. Despite the imprisonment of Parnell in 1881 and his disgrace ten years later over his relationship with a married woman, the Land League remained more ‘respectable’ than the Fenians and continued to negotiate with Westminster governments. One result was that, as Home Rule became a part of the political agenda, the Home Rulers made use of the League’s methods and of the links and contacts they had already created. Not for the last time in the history of Irish relationships with England debate and moral pressure had proved to be more effective than violence in changing attitudes and even in making useful changes. In contrast, the Irish Republican Brotherhood was, by its nature, a minority and fringe group. It may be that its violent methods forced the British government to take action over Ireland, but the action was never what the Fenians desired. Probably the most significant act of the IRB was the Easter Rising of 1916, which ensured that there would be armed struggle in Ireland and hardened British attitudes to the issues which still remained. A comparison of the two organisations indicates that social and economic issues are likely to be easier to resolve than political ones and that large and public groups are likely to adopt more reasonable and moderate methods than small and secretive ones. The links between the two groups, in membership and in ultimate targets, are less strong than the deep differences in methods and interim aims.

224 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

a) b)

Why were people in the United States interested in events in Ireland? Do you consider that American influence made a significant difference to Irish affairs?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Essay Plan: a) Introduction: Reasons mostly related to the US attitude to GB, including: Para 2: Bitterness of American migrants (link between migration and the inaction of the British government). Numbers of Irish migrants, both before and the during the famine years. Para 3: Briefly – historical reasons for hostility between USA and Britain (independence less than a century away; war in 1812–14; perceived interference in Latin America; perceived support for the rebellious south in the Civil War of the 1860s). Availability of military equipment and expertise following the end of the Civil War. Para 4: But by no means of interest to a majority of the American people, since there were other issues concerning them. b) General para 5: Significant difference? Yes, since without American influence the poverty and misery of Ireland would have inhibited anything except the day-to-day problems of subsistence. Para 6: Money to families back home provided sufficient economic development to enable people to have energy for political debate. Para 7: Influence of James Stephens and his Fenians from 1858 onwards: e.g. pointless attempt to breach only recently agreed Canadian frontier; also atrocities of 1860s; doubts about violence limited by distance and slowness of communication. Para 8: Other organisations offering help: Clan na Gael etc, willing to subsidise cultural and sporting activities as well as the Land League. Conclusion: Feeling of brotherhood and international status of the struggle was a constant encouragement to the Irish.

3. Gladstone and Ireland a) b)

Give an account of Gladstone’s changing attitudes towards Ireland. To what extent did he fail in his mission ‘to pacify Ireland’?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) Gladstone’s views on Ireland changed progressively as each of his attempts to deal with Irish grievances proved inadequate and as franchise reforms made it easier to discover the majority of Irish men’s opinions. It seemed to him that it would be entirely wrong for Westminster to go against the expressed wishes of the Irish majority. His attitude to Ireland was an echo of his views about imperialism in general and his wish that moral values and the enlightened self-interest of all groups should control public affairs. In his early days, as a Peelite Conservative, he had believed that the benefits of Free Trade would solve the problems in Ireland by providing economic

ESSAYS • 225

prosperity. But, as so often in his attempts to deal with Ireland, the delaying tactics and opposition of the House of Commons ensured that problems would remain and attitudes would harden. The violent campaign of the Fenians in the 1860s appears to have caused him to think very deeply about Irish aspirations. His initial view was that they had very real grievances and that if these could be solved, they would accept the rule of Westminster and play a full and positive part in the political life of the British Isles. Thus an early decision was to disestablish the Church in Ireland (1869), a measure that had been demanded since the Act of Union itself. Passing the act ended the injustice of tithe payments by Catholics to a religious organisation they neither attended nor approved, but it failed to satisfy the Catholic Church in Ireland, or indeed the Irish themselves, since it did not return the church buildings or the land. Irish Catholics continued to see the medieval buildings of their church used by Protestants, while they themselves had to worship in makeshift buildings and pay their priests directly. Gladstone also recognised the need to deal with the land question, and in 1870 the first Irish Land Act was passed. This was a modest measure entitling tenants to compensation when a lease ended for improvements made but was frequently countered by landlords raising the rent for the improved property when the lease was renegotiated. Although compensation was due for eviction without reason, eviction for non-payment of rent was not subject to compensation. This was a further incentive for landlords to increase rents as a mechanism for removing tenants cheaply. While this was a beginning, Gladstone refused to recognise, at this stage, the political aspirations of the Irish. His horror at the Fenians’ violent actions led to his refusal to grant amnesty to those still held in prison after the violent attacks of 1867. The formation of the Amnesty Association (1869) was a measure of the resentment at their continued imprisonment, and within a year, under the leadership of Isaac Butt, the Amnesty Association became the Home Rule Association, later League. The establishment of the Land League in 1879, and its Plan of Campaign, again convinced Gladstone that more needed to be done, but his hope that a second Land Act would be enough was doomed to disappointment. The rural violence which led to the Coercion Act and the brief imprisonment of Parnell also persuaded him that the Irish needed to be given a more peaceful way of making their views felt, and the 1884–5 Electoral Reform and Redistribution Acts did exactly that by enfranchising almost all Irish men. The way they used their new votes in the 1886 election convinced Gladstone that Ireland was determined to end the Union of 1801. Thus he moved to supporting the idea of Home Rule as the clear will of the Irish people. b) Gladstone’s much quoted remark is interesting, since it indicates that, in 1868 at least, his hope was to achieve calm in Ireland rather than specifically to satisfy Irish demands. He failed to do either, though by the end of the nineteenth century, Ireland had become a more peaceful and contented place than it had been in the 1860s. The failure to return the real estate of the Catholic Church was not unexpected, and the ending of tithe was a significant benefit. The Church continued to argue against the use of force, while maintaining its commitment to the Nationalist cause. The Church’s deep influence can be seen in the collapse of Parnell’s career once his liaison with Mrs O’Shea became public. But Gladstone could not have returned the Church property to the Catholics without alienating his own core

226 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

support amongst the Non-Conformists of Liberal England. The two Land Acts introduced by Gladstone’s ministries were attempts to prevent landlords behaving in an unjust way, but they left the central question unsolved, whereas the Land Purchase scheme developed by the Conservatives progressively removed the problem of landlordism and ensured that, by the beginning of the twentieth century, land holding was no longer a major issue. Gladstone’s hope that Irish tenants would be satisfied with fair rents was naive. Ownership enabled Irish farmers to make improvements and to show commitment to their family holdings. Although Gladstone was attempting to settle the problems of Ireland, he was not prepared to accept the levels of violence which had become endemic in the Land League’s actions. The Coercion Act of 1881, effectively suspended habeas corpus and allowed imprisonment without trial, but was not something that the Liberal Gladstone would have viewed with enthusiasm; negotiations with Parnell in Kilmainham Gaol might have moved the peace process forward had it not been for the actions of the Invincibles, a minor splinter group of extremist Nationalists. The murder in Phoenix Park, Dublin, of two British government officials demonstrated vividly that Gladstone had not yet been able to pacify Ireland. If it is accepted that parliamentary disruption is better than actual physical violence, then the electoral reforms of 1884–5 were a major step forward for Ireland. Because the franchise was now extended to all householders and £10 lodgers across all constituencies, the Irish were now represented by MPs of their choice, many of them subsidised by money from the USA. The results of the 1885 election conveyed an unmistakable message to Gladstone: the Liberals won no seats at all in Ireland, and Parnell’s Irish Nationalists became a serious party of 85 seats. Gladstone became convinced that Ireland must be offered self-government of some kind, otherwise there was the risk that the island would just secede, and no one with Gladstone’s views on imperial adventures could contemplate using force to compel the citizens of Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. So convinced was Gladstone that Home Rule was right that he was prepared to split his party, as Peel had done 40 years before. The failure of the first Home Rule Bill did not end Parnell’s determination to achieve devolution, and the filibustering tactics of Nationalist MPs became a constant reminder to Gladstone that the Irish issue remained to be solved. His withdrawal from the leadership appears to have given him more time to brood on the wrongs of Ireland. On his return to office in 1892, his single-minded determination to introduce Home Rule at all costs annoyed his cabinet colleagues, who felt that there were many more immediate (and potentially successful) measures to be considered. The House of Lords’ rejection of the bill in 1893 infuriated Gladstone, since the will of the elected majority had been thwarted by these representatives of the traditional classes of Britain. But his colleagues were not prepared to make an issue of it, or to attack the House of Lords in the way that Gladstone wanted, and so the Grand Old Man of British politics was forced to retire. Sixty years of holding government office ended in an awareness of failure. It was not until his last ministry that Gladstone appeared to regard his ‘mission’ in Ireland as his only duty. His earlier ministries had achieved many significant reforms, some aimed at Ireland specifically, others providing improvements in Ireland as in the rest of the British Isles. Nevertheless, he had committed himself to settling the problems of Ireland and in this he failed. It seems unlikely, however, that anyone could have succeeded, since the ethos of the times would not have allowed devolution. His work did identify the key Irish grievances and begin to address

ESSAYS • 227

them: unfortunately for him, the issues of Church and land were not isolated problems, but rather evidence for the Irish that the British government were unaware of their main concerns and were only prepared to make grudging changes when pushed by determined campaigns, whether violent or peaceful, whether parliamentary or popular.

a) b)

How were the Irish perceived by public opinion in the rest of Britain during the period of Gladstone’s ministries? How much support was there for Home Rule among different social groups in the rest of the British Isles?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

This question is more easily answered if you distinguish between the different groups in society, bearing in mind such issues as literacy and news coverage, other preoccupations of the different classes in this period, and the extent to which there was any real interest in Irish matters. Part (a) gives you an opportunity to consider the stereotypes available at the time, from Dickens and other authors, and the kind of reputation that Irish people had acquired in their work on the canals, railways and building sites of England. You may also want to refer to the continuing anti-Catholic sentiments of many English people. In part (b) you need to look closely at the election results when Home Rule was an issue and at the popularity of Gladstone’s other policies as a matter of comparison, perhaps in particular the popularity of his views on the Empire. A useful conclusion would be to link the two parts of the question together, considering whether the attitude to the Irish in the rest of Britain affected the way in which Home Rule was viewed.

4. The career of Parnell a) b)

Outline the career of Charles Stewart Parnell. How significant was he in shaping the course of Irish politics?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) Charles Stewart Parnell was a product of the Anglo-Irish society which favoured a separate parliament for Ireland. His grandfather had sat in Grattan’s Parliament (the Irish Parliament of 1782–1800) and had unsuccessfully opposed the Act of Union. Parnell was born in 1846 in County Wicklow and studied at Cambridge, as did so many of the sons of Protestant landowners. He was elected MP for County Meath in 1875 and rapidly emerged as a leading member of the group within the Home Rule Association most intent on obstructing the normal work of the House of Commons. At the same time, he was keen to work closely with the newly formed Irish Land League. He backed the Rent Strike of 1881 and the boycotting campaign, which made him liable to the accusation that he was encouraging violence and law breaking, and in October 1881 he was arrested. Tactically, this was a mistake by Gladstone: the Land League was losing support in the face of the Catholic Church’s growing concern about its methods. In addition, the passing of the Land Act and the determined hostility of the Property Defence Association had reduced the impact of the Land League and had caused criticism of Parnell’s leadership. He might well have lost the leadership had he not been arrested. Instead, he negotiated the so-called ‘Kilmainham Treaty’ which, it was hoped, would move on the process of land reform in return for an end to violence.

228 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

This positive move was shattered on 6 May 1882 when the chief secretary and under secretary for Ireland were murdered in Phoenix Park, Dublin. Parnell condemned the murders and the splinter group, known as the Invincibles, but his reputation was damaged by this new outbreak of violence. The Invincibles were captured and some were hanged, while others were sentenced to penal servitude for life. Parnell appears to have lost interest in Ireland at this time. Increasingly he stayed in London with his mistress, Mrs Catherine O’Shea, visiting Ireland only during the shooting season and generally behaving like a stereotypical landlord. He toyed with supporting the Conservatives, but brought his Nationalists behind Gladstone in 1886 to ensure that the issue of Home Rule became the subject of legislation. The first Home Rule Bill defeat meant that an election was unavoidable, and the results were disastrous for Gladstone, the Liberals and Parnell. The Conservatives won 314 seats (including 72 Liberal Unionists) against the Liberals’ 191. The Irish Nationalists gained their largest number so far, 86, but Parnell could not use this number to extract concessions from the Conservatives, since he was forced to support the ‘Home Rule’ party, the Liberals. Thus he was unable to channel Lord Salisbury into measures of which he approved. In any case, Parnell’s position was being weakened by developments outside the Commons: in 1887, The Times newspaper printed articles attempting to link him with the Phoenix Park murders. The facsimile letters which The Times produced were forgeries, but this was not proved until February 1890, when The Times was ordered to pay £250,000 in compensation. The strain of the long suspicion had an effect on Parnell’s health and, as if this was not enough, publicity of an even more unwelcome kind now focused on his private life. Captain Terence O’Shea, who had ignored or tolerated his wife’s relationship with Parnell for many years, chose this moment to divorce Kitty on grounds of her adultery, naming Parnell as co-respondent. The Catholic Church, given its unconditional condemnation of divorce, was bound to turn against him. But so did the moralising Gladstone and many of the Nationalists. Parnell was aware that he had failed to achieve either Home Rule or a serious range of reforms and he was a disappointed man at his death in October 1891. b) The direction taken by Irish politics in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was very much the result of Parnell’s career. His membership of the House of Commons ensured that it became the arena for the struggle for Irish rights, and he brought the technique of the filibuster to a high degree of sophistication, arguing that, if Parliament would not deal with Ireland’s needs, then it should deal with nothing else. Parnell’s own history suggested that the issue of Irish Home Rule did not have to be a sectarian one, since he himself was a Protestant, and it was not until some years after his death that Nationalism became irrevocably linked to Catholicism. Nevertheless he was keen to accept the help of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and worked closely with organisations like the Catholic Association. The Church was willing to accept that he had played no part in, nor condoned, the Phoenix Park murders, even before the commission of inquiry which cleared him, but it was unable to accept the fact of his adultery once this was made public by the O’Shea divorce case in 1890. Later it was clear to Irish politicians that, without the backing of the Church, their cause was hopeless. Only by distancing themselves from the Irish Volunteer Force and the actual planning of the Easter Rising was Sinn Féin able to command the support of the Catholic Church after the war. The limited and controlled use of violence as appropriate was something that Parnell was able to achieve, and after his death it became an accepted part of the Irish scene. The Land League,

ESSAYS • 229

although founded by Michael Davitt, had been very much Parnell’s creation. Aware that overt violence would lose Catholic Church support, Parnell encouraged the use of moral pressure. His encouraging of the boycotting campaign spilt over into occasional violence against property and even against people, and when agricultural depression led to the Land League’s ‘Plan of Campaign’, the frequency of attacks against landlords and their agents increased. But Parnell does not ever appear to have thought that violence alone could solve the problems of Ireland. His successors in the IVF and the Irish Trades Union Congress proved more willing to use military tactics to achieve their civil ends. Parnell also demonstrated a willingness to do deals and to accept concessions in return for support; in 1885, for example, he backed Salisbury’s brief government and was rewarded by the Land Purchase Act, which began the process of putting all the land of Ireland into the hands of those who worked it. Similarly, in 1892, he supported Gladstone in exchange for the second Home Rule Bill, and Redmond was to follow this pattern in supporting Asquith in his struggle against the House of Lords in return for the third Home Rule Bill. Parnell was equally important in ensuring that social issues became an integral part of the struggle for political rights. His commitment to land reform was as important to the Irish struggle as his demand for Home Rule. Similarly, Redmond was to support the Liberals’ social reform programme in the years before the Great War, and the Sinn Féin programme was as much about social policies for the future as it was about political change. Also during Parnell’s lifetime the future significance of the northern Protestants first became clear. Southern Protestants like himself proved willing either to accept Home Rule under a Catholic government, or to take the money made available for their lands under the various land purchase acts and to abandon Ireland to the Catholics, whereas northern Protestants had already begun their adamant campaign to maintain the Union. When the Unionist MP Randolph Churchill declared that ‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right’, he was predicting the whole story of Ireland both before and after the Great War. Thus, by the death of Charles Stewart Parnell, the future of Irish politics for the next 130 years, in both positive and negative aspects, had been set.

a) b)

How successful a leader of the Irish was Charles Stewart Parnell? (15 marks) Consider the view that ‘his leadership did more harm than good’ to Ireland. (15 marks)

Both parts of this question are phrased to make you consider extreme views of Parnell. When dealing with the ‘success’ of his leadership, it is crucial, and would make a good introduction, to look at what the aims of his leadership were. Then you can deal with the areas in which he was successful and evaluate the extent of the success. The second half is phrased in an even more tendentious way and, again, you need to extend the question, by asking what is meant by Ireland and who should judge the harm or good done by Parnell. An assessment of each of his achievements, and the policies he adopted, with the extent to which each affected Ireland for good or bad should enable you to reach and support a conclusion.

230 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

5. The Home Rule Bills a) b)

What were the terms of the first Home Rule Bill? How far would you agree that it was doomed to failure?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The initial difficulty with the terms of the first Home Rule Bill was that there was so little consensus, even among those who demanded Home Rule, about what the bill should contain. Some merely wanted a restoration of the Parliament abolished by the 1801 Act of Union, which would have effectively established a kind of dual monarchy, with Queen Victoria selecting a prime minister able to command a majority in the Irish Parliament. This was the pattern that had been achieved in the last 18 years before the Act of Union, following Henry Grattan’s work in ensuring that Irish Parliament decisions were not subject to ratification by the Privy Council. Others wanted a formal type of devolution and to create a federal format; and at the extreme, there were already Irishmen demanding a republic and full separation, under the banner of Home Rule. For any of these groups, Gladstone’s first Home Rule Bill was an over-modest and inadequate measure, but they would have accepted it as an initial step. Gladstone’s plan offered a bicameral (two chambers) legislature, not least to ensure that there was no overwhelming domination by the newly enfranchised rural householders. The lower house was to have 206 members elected by popular franchise. The upper house of 103 members was to be elected by a property franchise, of the kind which was rapidly disappearing in British general elections. The possibility of an Irish House of Lords, with Irish peers sitting in Ireland rather than in Westminster, was considered briefly but deemed to be unrepresentative. The upper house was to exercise a three-year veto. The executive power would be in the hands of a lord lieutenant, appointed by the queen and advised by a cabinet sitting in the lower house. Parliament would produce legislation for Ireland on a range of domestic issues. Key exceptions were revenue, coinage and customs and excise, which would continue to be subject to Westminster. Also excluded were all aspects of foreign policy including war and peace, issues of trade and navigation, and the armed forces. What was on offer was very much less than had been given to Canada or New Zealand, reflecting Gladstone’s continuing concern about the reliability of Irish attitudes to Britain’s foreign relationships. So moderate were these plans that the indignation and horror with which they were greeted and rejected continues to be surprising. b) The Home Rule Bill certainly did fail: when the measure was put to the vote, 313 were for the measure and 343 against, including the 93 Liberals who preferred to split their party than to accept Home Rule. The voting figures indicate other abstentions or absences on the government and Irish side, but it was the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists who ensured the bill would fail. Their objection was first and foremost imperial and constitutional: there was concern about the possible effects upon other parts of the kingdom, such as Scotland, which might in turn demand Home Rule; it was thought that British security would be at risk, should the Irish ‘back door’ be made vulnerable to enemy attack. After all, the Irish had invited French help in 1798, when Britain was at war against France. Religion was also a concern. Anti-Catholicism was a constant undercurrent in Britain, and the Unionists pointed to the Coronation Oath of the British monarch,

ESSAYS • 231

which promised to protect Protestantism against the threat of Catholicism. Naturally they would not accept the risk that Irish Protestants might fall under the control of a Catholic legislature. There was an obligation to protect those Irishmen whose ancestors had moved to Ireland at the behest of the British crown. Sufficient opposition was therefore ensured in the House of Commons to guarantee that the bill would not reach the Lords. But if it had done so, the Lords would have prevented its passing as they did the second bill in 1893. The bishops would vote against power transferring to the Catholic majority in Ireland, and the Irish landlords who sat as peers would resent any loss of their influence. The first Home Rule Bill had little or no backing from public opinion in England. Attitudes ranged from indifference to the question of Ireland to hostility, compounded by anti-Catholic prejudice mixed with anger at the violence on the mainland in the 1860s. There was a certain contempt for the Irish, which showed in anti-Irish steroetypes and jokes, and certainly no groundswell of goodwill towards the aspirations of Home Rulers. The Liberals’ crushing defeat in the elections following the bill’s failure confirms this. Even if the Home Rule Bill had successfully become law, it would probably have been unworkable in Ireland. The very limited amount of power allocated to the Irish Parliament would have led to a cosmetic rather than an actual ability to rule Ireland. Power would have remained in the hands of a small and atypical group. Until payment of MPs could be established, and given the property qualification for the upper house, the representatives of the Irish people would not have the same interests as their constituents: this was also true of Westminster MPs, as the increasing absenteeism of Parnell – except in the shooting season – demonstrates. There would undoubtedly have been serious opposition from the Protestant community, however limited the power handed to the Catholic majority by the provision of Home Rule. The resistance of Ulster was not called upon this time, but it was waiting ominously for future attempts to achieve devolution. The modest and limited 1886 Home Rule Bill was doomed to fail in its passage through the House of Commons, since there were such strong feelings ranged against it. But it is clear that had it, by some miracle, passed the Commons, the Lords would have stopped it, as they were to do with the second bill, and had it ever reached the statute book, opposition in Ireland would have been substantial.

a) b)

Compare the terms of the second and third Home Rule Bills. How far was the failure to implement the third Home Rule Bill the outcome of events which had nothing to do with Ireland?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Part (a) can be dealt with rapidly and factually, ensuring that the comparison brings out the key differences, in representation at Westminster and the planned powers of the devolved legislature. Your answer to part (b) needs to deal with two issues. First, the Irish reasons for the bill’s failure: the threat of civil war, the influence of Carson and the growing radicalism of both sides. Second, when you look at the non-Irish reasons for the failure make sure you consider the government, the opposition and the probable impact of public opinion. You will need to deal briefly with all the other issues confronting Asquith, as mentioned in Chapter 8, before reaching a conclusion.

232 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

6. The Conservatives and Land Law in Ireland a) b)

What were the aims of the Conservative party in Ireland? How far is it true to say that the Conservatives did more to help the Irish than the Liberals?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The basis of Conservative policy in Ireland was different from that of the Liberals, who tended to be concerned about the mandate of the electorate, and the expressed wishes of the politically active Irish. Their first aim was to protect the property and rights of property-owners from any illegal activities of tenants. Rent is, after all, what one person pays to enjoy the property of another, and thus the Conservatives were appalled by the Land League’s behaviour, the refusal to pay what were perceived as unfair rents, and the persecution of those who did pay rent or who occupied the lands of evicted tenants. As an extension of this, a key Conservative aim was to maintain, or restore and then maintain, law and order in Ireland rather than, as the Liberals appeared to, pander to terrorists. The period of ‘20 years of resolute government’ promised by Lord Salisbury was attempted by the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of 1887, with the aim of speeding up the work of the law courts. At the same time, the Conservatives hoped to deal with such of Ireland’s grievances as seemed legitimate. Two examples of this from the year 1885 were the Housing Act, which assisted labourers in finding affordable accommodation, and the Educational Endowments Act, which secured funding for Catholic establishments. Further than that, the Conservatives’ county council legislation effectively provided local government for the people of each area and gave them a taste of what it would be like to control their own affairs. Other useful reforms include establishing a Congested Districts Board to assist the development of railways, harbours and small industries in depressed areas; the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education encouraged modern methods, and the Irish Agricultural Organisation helped set up co-operatives to produce butter and cheese. The greatest grievance of the Irish was the issue of rents and land holding, and it was the Conservatives who both designed and implemented a series of land purchase reforms which were to remove this issue from the agenda. Had they realised that the Irish Nationalists, when they no longer had any reason to be concerned about land, would turn their attention single-mindedly to acquiring political power, they might have approached the land issue more tentatively: for the central aim of the Conservatives in Ireland was to maintain the Union as legally established by Parliament in 1800–01. This commitment, based on the constitutional rights and religious determination of Protestants in Ireland, ensured that the Conservatives recognised no sense of obligation to the rest of Ireland, despite the clear statements made at the polls on each general election. These statements were neutralised in Conservative eyes by Irish Nationalists at Westminster propping up Liberal governments which had lost the majority support of the voters in the rest of Great Britain. The Conservative bias against Ireland was further strengthened by the fact that Ireland was over-represented at the polls, since the population decline of the 1840s and 1850s had not been reflected in the redistribution legislation of 1867 and 1885, and by the support of some Irish Nationalists for the Boers in the South African War.

ESSAYS • 233

Thus Conservatives aimed to treat Ireland as an integral part of Britain: law and order, protection of property, and safeguarding the Protestant religion in Ireland. In pursuing these aims, they were willing to do their best to improve the conditions of Irish people, so long as those people remained loyal and quiescent. b) The Conservatives’ concern to settle Ireland by the redress of grievances is reminiscent of Gladstone’s initial hopes in the years following the Fenian campaign of the 1860s. In the event they achieved more than the Liberals, because the Liberals’ key policy, that of allowing Ireland to control its own affairs, was frustrated, first by the Conservatives, then by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords, and finally by the intervention of the Protestants of Northern Ireland supported by the Conservative opposition. The issue of land had been tackled first by Gladstone in a Land Act in 1870, which had attempted to protect tenants against eviction, and a further Land Act in 1881, which provided the ‘Three Fs’, including tribunals to fix fair rents. A certain amount of disapproval was discernible on the Conservative benches, where it appeared that Gladstone was merely giving in to the bullying tactics of the Land League with its boycotting and more violent techniques. Conservatives opposed both these land acts, which they regarded as an attack on the rights of property-owners. They followed their opposition to the first by preventing Gladstone’s planned university reforms, which led to his resignation in 1873 and frustrated the Catholic Church in Ireland, which had hoped to get substantial funding for its colleges. The Conservative approach to the land issue was more revolutionary, and ultimately much more effective than Gladstone’s attempts to mediate between landlord and tenant. Lord Ashbourne’s Act of 1885 provided government loans to tenants, with low rates of interest, to enable them to buy out their landlords. While the initial grant was a modest one, further acts were passed in 1887, 1891 and 1903, which added substantial sums of money, as well as establishing institutions to monitor the transfer of lands. The last of these Acts, Wyndham’s Land Purchase Act, ensured that over 75 per cent of land in Ireland was owned by the people who worked it. As far as the land issue is concerned, it is true to say that the Conservatives achieved more than the Liberals. The story is very different when we turn to the political questions of the early twentieth century. Once the so-called Protestant Ascendancy was ended, with the removal of Protestant landlords as a class, Irish attention turned with more determination than ever before to Home Rule. And the Conservatives committed themselves to preventing it at – apparently – any price. Once the House of Lords had lost their power of permanent veto, in the 1911 Parliament Act, the Conservatives recognised that the way to stop Home Rule was to ‘play the Ulster card’. Even before the third Home Rule Bill went to the Lords, Andrew Bonar Law, leader of the Conservative opposition, speculated publicly that the king might refuse to sign the act and that the army might refuse to enforce it. In November of the following year Bonar Law gave a speech in Dublin that raised the possibility of civil war when he compared the army’s refusal in 1688 to obey King James II to their probable willingness to refuse to obey the government’s orders over Home Rule. This apparent endorsement of illegal resistance to Parliament’s will encouraged the Ulstermen in their determination to prevent Home Rule by any means. In April 1914, the Ulster Volunteer Force successfully smuggled in 20,000 German rifles, landing them at Bangor, Donaghadee and,

234 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

most famously, at Larne completely unhampered by the Royal Irish Constabulary. In the same year, Carson’s embryonic provisional government met for the first time in Belfast on 10 July. All these threats forced Asquith to join Bonar Law at the conference table, but the meetings at Buckingham Palace on 21–23 July made it clear that agreement would be impossible. The official opposition was inciting army leaders in Ireland to allow their men to choose whether to obey orders or not and making speeches suggesting that civil war was a legitimate recourse. Whether or not Bonar Law would have put his words into action, he was released from the commitments he had made by the outbreak of war in Europe. In concluding whether the Conservatives did Ireland more good than the Liberals, therefore, it is important to distinguish the period before 1910 from the years after. Until the issue of Ulster arose, the Conservatives had pursued a limited but sensible policy which successfully removed the worst social and economic problems in Irish agriculture. These useful measures did not, however, satisfy the aspirations of the Irish, and when confronted with what the Irish majority clearly – from their electoral behaviour – wanted, the Conservatives, and particularly Bonar Law, moved into the realms of illegal and seditious planning, which could do no good for Ireland or indeed for the rest of Britain.

a) b)

What changes were made to land laws in Ireland between 1870 and 1903? (15 marks) Do you agree with the view that land reform did more to address the problems of Ireland than the Home Rule Bills? (15 marks)

Part (a) requires a little care to prevent it becoming a list. A brief account of the problems of land holding before 1870 is a sensible way to begin, and then it is probably worth grouping the land acts together: those which attempted to mediate between landlord and tenant, and those which transformed the ownership of land in Ireland. Evaluating what the problems of Ireland were should be the beginning of part (b). It is a perennial topic for discussions on imperialism whether economic improvements are a sufficient price to pay for political dependency. If you perceive the problems of Ireland to be merely those of eviction and absentee landlords, then your answer will reflect that. But you must still consider the political aspirations of the Irish and the development of a Home Rule movement.

7. The Protestants and the Unionists a) b)

Who were the Protestants of Ireland? Why was support for Sir Edward Carson so strong among the Protestants of Ireland?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) There were two distinct types of Protestant in nineteenth-century Ireland, but only one group was relentlessly hostile to the idea of Home Rule. The more amenable group consisted mainly of Anglican Church members. They were landowners whose families had accepted Protestantism in

ESSAYS • 235

the past for the political and administrative opportunities which it could offer, or they descended from families awarded estates in Ireland for earlier service to monarch and state. These families were spread across Ireland. When the time for Home Rule finally arrived, many of them were content to live within a Catholic Ireland, since persecution on religious grounds never formed part of government policy for the Irish Free State. Others had taken their families to England, having sold their land to their tenants under the terms of the various land purchase acts. When historians and politicians speak of Irish Protestants, they are referring to the Protestants from the north east corner of Ireland, and in particular the four counties of Londonderry, Antrim, Armagh and Down. These were, in the main, Presbyterians, who had been ‘planted’ or assisted to settle in earlier times as part of a deliberate royal policy to dilute the Catholic dominance in Ireland. The descendants of these Scottish settlers worked in the industries of Belfast and the north east: the linen mills and the ship building yards, such as the Harland and Wolff shipyard which built the liner Titanic. Convinced of the rightness of their cause, remembering the victories of the seventeenth century and the heroism of their ancestors, they regarded the Pope as Antichrist, and Catholics as devious and dangerous. For them, Protestantism was a branch of politics or, to put it another way, maintaining the Union was a branch of their religious faith. Their sectarian feelings, already strong, were exacerbated by the papal decrees of 1908 and 1911. The first condemned interdenominational marriages, while the second appeared to demand a return to the medieval ‘benefit of clergy’ by suggesting clerical immunity in civil court cases. Groups like the Orange Order became increasingly politicised from this time onwards. b) For the Protestants of Northern Ireland, Sir Edward Carson was the embodiment of deeply felt convictions and loyalties. His early career as a barrister had established him as a public figure of the establishment side. He had successfully defended Lord Alfred Douglas’ father in the libel case brought by Oscar Wilde in 1895 and had been appointed attorney general under Arthur Balfour. He represented Trinity College, Dublin in the House of Commons, where he adopted the tactics of the Irish Nationalists against them, leading filibusters and amendments to slow down the passage of the third Home Rule Bill. In this campaign, most of his supporters were from Ulster, where 16 of the 18 MPs were Unionists. As well as his parliamentary performance, his personality and appearance attracted support. His height and readily identifiable silhouette made him instantly recognisable. At the Craigavon mass meeting of Ulster Unionists, in1911, he spoke as the leader. Unionism was first and foremost defensive, for religious reasons above all. Historically, Catholics had massacred Protestants as frequently as Protestants had killed Catholics, and Carson expressed these religious and political views. In September 1912, Carson orchestrated the Belfast Town Hall signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. Within a few weeks it had gained over half a million signatures. But some signed for economic rather than religious reasons. Landowners feared the equalisation of holdings which the IRB, among others, demanded. Other economic concerns were raised by the conflict between urban and rural interests: just as the Union of Italy had led to the prosperous industrial north being heavily taxed to support the poverty stricken agricultural regions of Naples and Sicily, so Unionists feared that a separate Ireland would see industrial Ulster paying for the poverty of the south. And some of Ulster’s main industries, for example ship building, depended entirely on British demand. It was also felt that the Catholics had, over the years, had so little administrative experience that government would be incompetent.

236 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

Carson also had the support of the Orange Order, which, as it became increasingly politicised, transformed its ritual commemorative marches into something more directly military. In January 1912, magistrates in Belfast issued licences for the Orange Order to conduct drill and military exercises, ‘to make them more efficient citizens for maintaining the Constitution of the United Kingdom as now established’.4 Protestants supported Carson because he made it clear that he could and would lead resistance to the implementation of Home Rule. Once it was obvious that Home Rule would be achieved, he guaranteed them the Partition which would safeguard their interests, although to accept separate treatment exclusively for these northern counties would betray Unionists and Protestants in the south of Ireland, possibly as many as a quarter of a million. Historically, of the 32 counties of Ireland, the Province of Ulster made up nine. But, as we have seen, only four of these counties (Antrim, Down, Derry and Armagh) had Protestant majorities; Asquith suggested adding to them, for the purposes of separate treatment, the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone, which had about 50 per cent Protestants, and this was the offer put Figure 6.4 Map of Ireland in 1914

Londonderry Antrim

Larne

Donegal Belfast

Bangor Donaghadee

Tyrone Arm

Fe rm

Monaghan

Down

agh

an ag h

Sligo Leitrim

Cavan

Louth

mon

ng

Meath

Lo

com

Ros

for d

Mayo

Dublin Howth

Westmeath Dublin

Galway Offaly

Kildare Wicklow

Laois

Counties of Ireland

Clare Carlow Tipperary

Kilkenny Wexford

Limerick Waterford Kerry Cork Cork

Boundary of “Ulster” as partitioned in 1914 Counties of historic Ulster not included in partitioned Ulster 1914, i.e. Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan Predominantly Protestant population by 1914 Predominantly Catholic population by 1914 No predominant religious group, i.e. 50% of each = Tyrone and Fermanagh Towns

ESSAYS • 237

forward in March 1914. Carson and the Ulster Union were torn: the remaining three counties, Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, should be included for historical reasons, but their large Catholic majorities would make them difficult to control. Thus Carson agreed to the separation of the Six Counties. By September 1913 plans for a provisional government were in place in case the bill went through. Conservative opposition support in Britain was recognised as being, in part at least, the work of Carson. The Conservative leader, Andrew Bonar Law, publicly stated support for the Ulstermen’s use of military force, if no other method could prevent Home Rule, and the military authorities in Ireland echoed his view. The ill-timed order by the cabinet to reinforce naval and military bases in Ulster suggested that the government was planning to use force to compel the north to accept Home Rule. General Paget and General Friend failed to follow their orders to move troops north to Armagh, Omagh, Enniskillen and Carrickfergus. On 20 March 1914, 60 officers were given a choice at the Curragh army base about whether to carry out their duties, and resigned their commissions rather than go to reinforce positions in Ulster. It was, in the history-soaked context of Ulster, significant that the last time a British army had refused to obey orders was in 1688 when they declined to obey the orders of James II. Carson’s leadership received the support of Ulstermen because he so fully epitomised their faith and determination; the question of whether he would ever have led his people to war against their own king and country is unanswerable, since the declaration of war in 1914 suspended Home Rule and rallied the Ulster effort against Germany. The heroism and high casualty rates among Ulster’s regiments (30,000 at the Battle of the Somme alone) probably did more than Carson’s posturings to ensure that, when the war ended, the Six Counties were guaranteed the partition which they had demanded. After the Great War, Carson settled back into mainstream politics, having earned the settlement that his supporters had asked of him.

a) b)

Give an account of the life and career of Sir Edward Carson. (30 marks) Who supported Carson in his commitment to the armed struggle?(60 marks)

Part (a) may appear to be inviting a purely narrative account, but ensure that you focus on the aspects of his life which are relevant to the history of Unionism and Ireland: his early career as a lawyer, for example, may be relevant when it comes both to framing solemn oaths and to public speaking. Similarly, the story of what happened in the years before the outbreak of the Great War should be used to develop the points you will need to make in part (b) of your answer. In considering his support, you need to deal with each section of the Unionist movement in turn, referring to the popular following that he had in Ulster as well as the backing of Conservatives and Unionists at Westminster; you should also point out the evidence, for instance from the successful gun-running and the so-called ‘Curragh Mutiny’, that the authorities in Ireland were also inclined to support him. A thought-provoking conclusion might involve a discussion about how committed he was to the armed struggle and whether he would indeed have led his people into civil war against the government to which he was bound by the Union he so loved.

238 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

8. Ireland, the Great War and the Easter Rising 1916 a) b)

What were the aims of the Easter Rising of 1916? What were the implications for Ireland of the failure of the Rising?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

The origins of the Easter Rising lie partly in the sense of betrayal at the suspension of the Home Rule Act in 1914 and the conviction that once the Great War was over Unionists would continue their undue influence over Irish politics. Thus the Rising’s first aim was a forcible seizure of power in Ireland from the British government. A second aim was to distance Ireland from the war. Left-inclined groups all over Europe were declaring it to be ‘the bosses’ war’, and to Irish republicans the question of who owned Alsace Lorraine seemed irrelevant. In this, they differed from Redmond’s Nationalists, whose loyal declaration of support had been immediate in August 1914. The rebels also hoped to replace Redmond’s parliamentary Nationalists as the key group in current and future government of Ireland. This was not only because their views on politics and England were increasingly incompatible, but also because they thought that they had a clearer view of what it meant to be Irish. The question ‘what does it mean to be Irish?’ had been asked by the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association; these had respectively encouraged study of the Gaelic language and of traditional Irish sports such as hurling. Indeed, in the early years of the twentieth century, the Gaelic Athletic Association boycotted cricket matches. From hurling matches to training and military drill was a short step for some young men of the Athletic Association. Meanwhile, the Gaelic League had, as well as teaching the language, inspired the romantic side of men such as Padraig Pearse, leader of the Rising. These organisations had won Catholic Church support, which made it more likely that the definition of ‘Irish’ would be a Catholic one. Although they set their faces against actual violence, both the Catholic Association and the Ancient Order of Hibernians supplied a religious base for the rebels of Easter 1916. The aims of the Easter Rising may therefore be seen as the following: to overthrow British rule in Ireland, to take Ireland out of the war, and to establish a truly Irish and socially radical government for the whole of Ireland. On the other hand, the way the Rising was managed may lead to the impression that its aims were not so far-reaching and that the Rebels hoped merely to disrupt the government and make a protest. Had they been intent on a successful take-over, we might have expected them to change their timings when the guns they had intended to use were intercepted off Kerry on 21 April, and Roger Casement, who had obtained them, was arrested. Similarly, the date was ill-chosen: the population of Dublin was at the bank holiday races when the Rising began, and they were not inspired by the news as it broke. The points of attack, too, seem idiosyncratic: the Post Office in Dublin was hardly a strategic objective, although it was centrally placed and with a fine portico from which to read declarations. b) Whatever the original aims of the Rising, there is no doubt that the implications for Ireland were far-reaching and unexpected. Initially, there was very little support for the rebels. During the six days of the Rising, virtually no other area joined in, and the crowds watched the rebels’ arrest with disapproval or indifference. This was partly because over half of the 450 dead were civilians who had not wished to be involved but were caught in the fighting. The Catholic Church

ESSAYS • 239

condemned the Rising, the IRB collapsed, having lost its leadership and organisation, and the Irish Volunteer Force, which had played a central part in planning the Rising, was demoralised and divided. All this was changed by the British government’s response to the Rising, once it had been suppressed, mainly by the police. General Maxwell enforced martial law for the whole of Ireland: 3,500 people were arrested and 1,800 interned without trial in the camp at Frongoch, Wales. Houses were searched and newspapers and political groups were closed down, while sporting fixtures and all assemblies were prohibited. The culminating factor was the slow and laborious trial and execution of the 15 leaders, followed in August 1916 by the execution of Roger Casement. As if this was not enough, the British authorities then reversed an earlier policy decision and imposed conscription on Ireland. It was this reaction which transformed the Rising into the seminal event of the Irish struggle and its participants into martyrs whose names were learned by heart in Irish schools for the next half century. Indeed, it may be said that the Rising dictated the direction of Irish politics for the rest of the twentieth century, since it enshrined Republicanism and the armed struggle as key elements. The initiative had passed from Redmond, who died in May 1918, and the Nationalists disintegrated. Sinn Féin, which had not been closely involved in the Rising, likewise found its leaders interned and its offices closed down, but it was to benefit most from British policies. At first sight, the rise of Sinn Féin is surprising, since they had not been the instigators of the Rising, had remained in favour of a dual monarchy and had been against the concept of armed struggle (although Eamon de Valera, the only Easter 1916 leader to survive, because his US citizenship saved him from execution, was a member and soon became president, of both Sinn Féin and the Irish Volunteers). Nevertheless, with the difficulties of the other groups, Sinn Féin membership rose rapidly (to 65,000 by October 1917) and they gained Catholic Church backing and signed an electoral agreement with the Irish Labour Party. At the ard fheis (party conference) in Dublin during October 1917, Sinn Féin worked out a compromise to please all Nationalists, whether Republican or Monarchist. Their declared aim was to achieve international recognition as an independent republic, and then hold a referendum so that the people could choose their own form of government. This ensured republican support, although at this stage Sinn Féin’s own programme included a dual monarchy, like that of Austria-Hungary, with Ireland independent under the same ruler as England, together with economic protectionism to lead to Irish self sufficiency. This was much less radical than the aims of those who had led the Rising, although Sinn Féin also received support from Clan na Gael in the USA and the Irish Brigade (who had fought for the Boers). In the spring and summer of 1917, Sinn Féin candidates won four by-elections, at Roscommon, Longford, East Clare and Kilkenny. In September 1917, Thomas Ashe, a Sinn Féiner on hunger strike in Mountjoy Gaol, died while being force fed, and his martyrdom confirmed the ascendancy of Sinn Féin. Proof of this ascendancy was to come in the 1918 general election, when Sinn Féin gained over 70 per cent of Irish constituencies. Probably the most damaging effect of the Rising and of the government reaction to it was legitimising, as some of the Irish public saw it, the armed struggle and making the IRA realise that training and guerrilla methods would be essential. The British imposition of conscription provided the IRA with volunteers from amongst the young men preferring to avoid conscription and to fight in their own country. The training acquired at the internment camp in Frongoch was used to lethal effect in the years after the Great War.

240 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

For Unionists, the Rising was proof of the Nationalists’ treachery since it happened when Ulstermen were dying in large numbers on the Western Front (30,000 of the dead at the Battle of the Somme were from Ulster). The bitterness provoked here meant that there was even less chance of compromise and a straightforward hand-over of power under the Home Rule Act once the war came to an end. Above all, despite the defeat of the Rising, it provided a victory of idealists over pragmatists, which was to poison any future relationships and to render almost impossible the achievement of any reasonable settlement.

a) How did Irishmen react to the outbreak of the Great War? (15 marks) b) Why and with what results did rebellion break out at Easter 1916? (15 marks)

It is important to distinguish the varied reactions to both these events. In part (a), Redmond’s declaration of loyalty on the part of the nationalists, and the substantial number of Irishmen volunteering into the British army; similarly, the Unionist rhetoric replaced by army service; but on the other side the radical Nationalists’ desire to use the war to achieve their own ends, and willingness to use German help. Similarly, the responses to the Rising and the different attitudes need to be considered in turn, separating the short-term and immediate results from what happened when the British government imposed draconian measures. The results up to the Treaty of 1921 would be relevant to include here.

9. Ireland 1918–21 a) b)

Why was there a ‘civil war’ in Ireland between 1918 and 1921? Can anyone be said to have won this war?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The fighting in Ireland between 1918 and 1921 is often called a civil war, but some Irish people would deny this terminology on the grounds that the English were not natives of Ireland but an occupying force which needed to be removed by freedom fighters. Others would argue that the different ‘tribes’ of Ireland contested land ownership, each with support from abroad. The main reason for this armed struggle was the strong feelings on each side. The British government was anxious to deal with the aftermath of the terrible World War before turning its attention to Ireland, considering that the commitment to Home Rule for much of Ireland should be taken on trust until they were ready to establish the institutions. They were disinclined to trust the Irish, and particularly Sinn Féin, since the ‘stab in the back’ of the 1916 Easter Rising, which had occurred just as British armies were confronting some of the worst fighting in the war. Protestant determination in the north to resist Home Rule at all costs ensured plenty of recruits into the Royal Irish Constabulary, its numbers strengthened by the recruitment of ex-soldiers (the Black and Tans) and ex-officers, the Auxiliaries.

ESSAYS • 241

Meanwhile, the Nationalists were equally outraged by the failure to implement Home Rule, and by the planned exclusion of some Ulster counties. The British government’s draconian reaction to the Rising of 1916 had also enhanced Sinn Féin’s status, and the concept of armed struggle became more acceptable to the Irish people. Sinn Féin’s growing authority was confirmed at the general election of November 1918. Held under the new Redistribution and Franchise Act, which had trebled the number of voters and in particular enfranchised the young men who had been against conscription, the results were striking: Sinn Féin won 73 seats with the Irish Nationalists reduced to seven seats. While it is accepted that there was a great deal of intimidation and personation by the IRB and the Gaelic Athletic Association and that Sinn Féin won less than half the actual votes, they had 70 per cent of the seats. Another reason for the ‘civil war’ was the British reaction to the Sinn Féin MPs’ decision to boycott Westminster. When their National Assembly, the Daíl Éireann, met on 21 January 1919, only 27 of its members attended, since many of the others were in prison. In April 1919, the Daíl set up a cabinet, with de Valera as president, Michael Collins in charge of finance, Arthur Griffith as home secretary, and committees to organise all aspects of government. Their local representatives were the effective government of Ireland, but this did not prevent the British government declaring the Daíl illegal in September 1919; by the spring of 1920 only three members of the Daíl were free and in Ireland. Their local republican courts, and their military wing, the Irish Republican Army, administered the law in the regions, while the Land Commission and National Land Bank organised land transfers. Sinn Féin participated in the local elections in March 1920 and were surprised to win almost half the seats. Thus they became the legal local government in many areas, and still the British government refused to recognise the Daíl. The other factor making civil war both probable and lethal was the availability of arms on both sides. The arms caches of the pre-war years were increased by the weapons of demobilised men: thousands of Irishmen had volunteered to fight Germany, and some had left the army less formally than they had joined. With weapons and motivation on all sides, armed conflict was almost inevitable. b) Both sides claimed that the war had ended satisfactorily, though neither had completely achieved its objectives. The British government had been forced to recognise the Daíl, despite the fact that it had been established illegally, and to negotiate with it. They had lost personnel in a bloody and unpleasant conflict, and they were left with a legacy of hatred and mistrust which made relationships difficult for the next half century. On the other hand, they had safeguarded the partitioned six counties of Ulster, committing themselves to maintaining the Union as demanded by Carson before the Great War. In an attempt to achieve normality in the middle of the fighting, the British government went ahead with the delayed Home Rule Act, establishing in December 1920 two Home Rule Parliaments: Belfast and Dublin. Among the first actions of the northern Unionist Parliament was to establish the Ulster Special Constabulary, including parttimers known as the B-Specials. Many of them were ex-UVF members, and the Special Powers Act gave them powers greatly exceeding those of normal police forces. In the same first sessions, the Local Government Emergency Powers Act made it possible to remove Roman Catholics from public office. It was clear from the beginning of the truncated Ulster of Home Rule that friendly relationships would not be easily achieved.

242 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

The Irish Nationalists had perhaps gained less. Sinn Féin, like the Westminster parliament, had also been determined to stamp its authority on the new Ireland, and having done so in the elections of 1918, it expected to govern. Indeed, when the Daíl first met, although many newly elected members were in prison or in hiding, there were plenty of journalists from all over the world waiting to hear their policy statements about state intervention in the economy and social improvement. Sinn Féin also hoped for international recognition, but this was not forthcoming; although Irish representatives attended the Berne Socialist Convention in February, they were not allowed to be at the Versailles Peace Conference. They had argued, with the support of the US Congress, that they had as much right to be there as other post-imperial small nationalities, such as the Czechs, the Estonians and the Poles. But the support of Lloyd George and Britain for the treaty makers was more important. In this context, the British attempts to suppress the Daíl Éireann were bound to lead to violence; and the Nationalists interned at Frongoch Camp in Wales emerged trained in guerrilla tactics of all kinds. On the ground, each side claimed victories in the fight. The IRA, with members from the IRB and the Gaelic Athletic Association, was trained in guerrilla tactics by men who had studied the methods in the Frongoch internment camp. If captured, they continued their struggle by hunger striking: in October 1920, Terence MacSwiney, mayor of Cork, died in Brixton Gaol after 74 days without food. The IRA targeted the Royal Irish Constabulary, beginning with shooting two policemen at Soloheadbeg on 21 January 1919 and, in doing so, provoking retaliation which caused the whole struggle to spiral. The British government responded by hiring ex-soldiers and exofficers to augment the police. The soldiers wore black RIC berets and armlets with their khaki uniforms and thus became known as the Black-and-Tans. Their methods, and those of the Auxiliaries (the ex-officers), were very different from those of the police, and ambushes, revenge killings and torture were common on both sides. The IRA forced the British to reinforce the Royal Irish Constabulary with ex-soldiers. Eventually the RIC remained enclosed in its fortified police stations, emerging only in force on carefully planned operations. The RIC was therefore able to claim that it had reduced the IRA to impotence. Certainly, by 1921, the Nationalist fighters were acutely short of weapons and – perhaps more seriously – were losing the support of ‘their’ people as they resorted to extortion and forced recruitment. Unpaid and isolated, the young men of the IRA found it hard to imagine a world at peace. Their sense of betrayal when their leaders, Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, signed the truce which excluded the six counties was palpable and was revealed in continued fighting. In December 1921, the 1801 Act of Union was repealed and the Irish Free State was given Dominion Status as a member of the Commonwealth, with a British governor general. Britain held on to some naval bases in the south. Thus the Irish fought for what they might have been given without a fight: but their aim, successfully achieved, had been to take Home Rule, rather than being given it. Neither side was actually victorious and, as so frequently in Ireland’s history, the compromise settlement reached after three years of fighting differed very little from what might have been agreed three years before.

SOURCES • 243

a) b)

What did the Irish Nationalists hope to achieve in the years between 1918 and 1921? To what extent were they successful?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Range of attitudes among Nationalists, so not entirely straightforward. Para 1: Almost all Irish were ‘Nationalist’; evidence? Number of Sinn Féin MPs elected at the 1918 election (though share of the vote smaller, and clearly some malpractices at the polls). All wanted what they had been promised by the British government (details of Home Rule Act). Para 2: Sinn Féin wanted to achieve power both locally and nationally, and did so legitimately, especially at local elections in March 1920 when they won almost half the seats. But they also wanted the whole of Ireland and for the British to confirm that the exclusion of some Ulster counties was merely temporary (some details here of which counties and why would be useful). b) Para 3: Again, varying aspirations led to varying success. In one way, an almost complete success: by 1921, Ireland had Dominion Status, and the British government had been forced to negotiate with the (illegal) Daíl. On the other hand, Ireland was divided and remained so for the whole of the century. Para 4: Mass of the population got a civil war they did not want; aggressive policing by the British government hardened the attitudes in Ireland (compare effects of British reaction to 1916 Rising). Para 5: Sinn Féin had to fight and almost lost a civil war (as the fighting went on, increasingly, RIC sheltered in heavily defended police stations, emerging only to attack the IRA in large numbers; the IRA, unpaid and short of ammunition, began to lose popularity with its own people as extortion and intimidation became their preferred methods). At the same time, Sinn Féin gained power politically, in a legitimate way, by contesting elections. Conclusion: The success was limited by the exclusion of some Ulster counties. Not clear whether Britain would have implemented Home Rule without the pressure of Sinn Féin and the IRA, but they might have taken some years to do so.

Part 3: Sources 1. The issues underlying the first Home Rule Bill Source A: Part of a speech by Parnell, 1880

If you refuse to pay unjust rents, if you refuse to take farms from which others have been evicted, the land question must be settled, and settled in a way that will be satisfactory to you. It depends therefore upon yourselves, and not upon any commission or any government . . . when a man takes a farm from which another has been evicted, you must shun him in the streets of the town

244 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

– you must shun him in the shop – you must shun him in the fairgreen and in the marketplace and even in the place of worship; by leaving him alone, by putting him into a moral Coventry, by isolating him from the rest of the country as if he were the leper of old – you must show him your detestation of the crime he has committed. Source B: Lord Salisbury speaking to the National Union of Conservative Associations, May 1886

The habits the Irish have acquired are very bad. They have become habituated to the use of knives and slugs [bullets], which is wholly inconsistent with [our] placing of confidence in them. [Some of them] murder agents, they mutilate cattle, they prevent harvest men earning their livelihoods, they shoot people in the legs who presume to pay their lawful debts, and by these actions and threats they punish all who give any support or have any dealing with the supporters of the existing polity . . . My alternative policy is that Parliament should enable the government of England to govern Ireland. Apply that recipe honestly, consistently, and resolutely for twenty years and at the end of that time you will find that Ireland will be fit to accept any gifts in the way of local government . . . What she wants is government – a government that does not flinch, that does not vary – a government she cannot hope to beat down by agitations at Westminster. Source C: Gladstone introducing the Home Rule Bill, 8 April 1886

I rely on the effects of full and free discussion; and I rely more than all upon the just and generous sentiments of the two British nations. Looking forward, I ask the House to assist us in the work which we have undertaken, and to believe that no trivial motive can drive us to it – to assist us in this work which, we believe, will restore Parliament to its dignity and legislation to its free and unimpeded course. I ask you to show to Europe and to America that we, too, can face political problems which America twenty years ago faced and which many countries in Europe have been called upon to face and have not feared to deal with. I ask in our own case that we should practise with firm and fearless hand, what we have so often preached – namely that the concession of local self-government is not the way to sap or impair, but the way to strengthen and consolidate unity . . . The best and surest foundation we can find to build upon is the foundation afforded by the affections, the convictions and the will of the nation; and it is thus, by the decree of the Almighty, that we may be enabled to secure at once the social peace, the fame, the power and the permanence of the Empire. Source D: An historian’s view of Gladstone’s dilemma

Gladstone was . . . keen to encourage devolution from the imperial parliament for procedural reasons. He wanted to remove the block to legislation caused by the obstructive tactics of the Irish Nationalist MPs and, more generally, to relieve the Commons of an unmanageable legislative burden. Home Rule might be the first in a series of concessions of power to local bodies which, far from diminishing the dignity of the imperial parliament, would strengthen it for the purpose of regular and cleansing legislative action. Gladstone insisted that decentralisation tapped local vigour more effectively, adding to the unity and strength of the Empire. But the problem about Home Rule was that while it appeared in line with some Liberal ideas, it directly contravened other, even more powerful Liberal myths – those of national and imperial integration under the

SOURCES • 245

rule of law, and the responsibility of the propertied for the maintenance of order and extension of morality.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the references to America in Source C To what extent does Lord Salisbury (Source B) sum up Conservative views on the Irish and their problems? What do these sources reveal about the effectiveness of the methods advocated and used by Parnell? To what extent does Source D accurately sum up the points made by Gladstone in his speech (Source C)? By reference to your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which these sources provide a complete account of the difficulties confronting Gladstone’s Home Rule policy. (12)

(3) (5) (5) (5)

ANSWERS

a) The fact that Gladstone needs to ‘show to America’ that the problems can be solved is a reminder of the part Irish Americans played in the Fenian campaign, by providing money, arms and moral support. But the main reference is to the problems faced 20 years earlier and refers to the war between the states over the issue of states’ rights. It is an interesting reference, since the American Civil War ended with the maintenance of the Union and the failure of secession: thanks to the victory of the northern states. b) Salisbury’s speech is very anti-Irish, stereotyping the Irish on the basis of few people’s actions and exaggerating the amount of violence. He fails to accept the ethical basis of the Land Campaign, namely that tenants who take over the land of evicted families should not be accepted in society, and he is intolerant of the disruptive behaviour which was the Nationalists’ main weapon at Westminster. Were these typical Conservative sentiments? Certainly the appeal to orderliness and the need for firm and inflexible government is a recognisable Conservative attitude. And when it came to voting about Home Rule, the Conservatives were not prepared to compromise with the Irish in any way. The target of law and order and firm government is a recognisable Conservative slogan in any age. c) The most effective of Parnell’s methods was the one mentioned in the other three sources, but not in his speech, namely the filibustering and other tactics at Westminster, which enraged MPs as both Gladstone and Salisbury mention. This was effective in keeping the Irish question to the forefront in the Commons by disrupting other legislation and making Parliament appear undignified. The tactics of the Land Campaign, described in source A, were totally peaceful in Parnell’s account; but as Salisbury makes clear, there was a violent element. This violent element may have made the Conservatives more intransigent, although to Gladstone it was an expression of the ‘will of the nation’ and a reason why he concluded that Home Rule was the only possible

246 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

ethical solution. Parnell’s tactics were not successful in the sense of ending the Union. But they were successful in reminding Westminster MPs that the problem existed and continued to exist and in pointing to the land issue as one that needed to be solved. It was Salisbury’s party which eventually defused the land issue by the provision of funds for land purchase. d) Many of the arguments used by Gladstone are accurately reported by source D: the need to restore Parliament (as Gladstone says) to its dignity, so that the Irish would stop disrupting essential legislation, was crucial if the Liberals were to fulfil their commitments to the electorate of the rest of Britain. The need for vigorous local government was another point which Gladstone made and which source D picks up. Rather than being a surrender of central authority, it would be invigorating to the whole of politics; similarly, rather than damaging the Empire, it would strengthen it by ensuring that the different groups within it were there of their own volition. But the arguments on the other side, which are not included in Gladstone’s speech, are clearly outlined by Jonathan Parry: the belief in close integration for the different parts of the Empire, the commitment to the rule of law and the recognition that some classes had a greater responsibility than others for maintaining the security and cohesion of the Empire. Thus we can see the usefulness of considering secondary sources as well as primary, since a historian will aim to supply the balance lacking when the views of one side or another in a dispute are being studied. e) Source A reveals the centrality of the land issue in the question of Ireland. This has no direct link to the demand for Home Rule, but it is a measure of Irish determination to achieve its ends. The Land Purchase Acts from 1885 to 1903 were to settle the land question, but the tactics which the Irish had learned in the Land Campaign were to be applied in the quest for Home Rule. And Gladstone was to find that there was no compromise available dealing with the Irish Nationalists. Source B shows the Conservative leadership’s attitude was equally unlikely to compromise. The conviction that firm government would solve the problem and that Ireland might receive ‘gifts in the way of local government’ by 1906 shows Gladstone’s hope of Home Rule would be opposed. By the 1880s, the House of Lords was already inclined to oppose Liberal policies, and this tendency was to strengthen until their power was curtailed in 1911. Source C recognises the difficulties of Home Rule by putting devolution into the context of the wars and revolutions of other countries. But his claim that devolution would actually strengthen the ties of Empire is not an entirely convincing one; committed imperialists were determined to to maintain the Union. As source D points out, the central problem was that not even the Liberals were agreed about Home Rule. The issues of morality and the Liberal reluctance to give in to undue pressure were linked with issues of Empire and the question of property owners’ rights. In a period when jingoism was thriving and Gladstone was condemned for failing to save Gordon at Khartoum, it was unlikely that the British people would be willing to give up an ancient possession like Ireland. Other, more contentious issues are not significantly touched upon by these sources. A central base of the Unionist case was that the Coronation Oath of Britain includes a promise to protect the Protestant faith. The concentration of Non-Conformists in north east Ireland was not yet an issue, but in the end it would destroy all hopes of Home Rule, not just for Salisbury’s 20 years but for more than 30.

SOURCES • 247

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d)

What is the name usually given to the strategy recommended by Parnell in source A? When and how did it acquire that name? (10) How far does source D successfully explain why the question of Home Rule was to split the Liberal Party? (25) Compare the tone of sources A and B. What evidence is there that the two speakers were addressing very different audiences? (25) Making use of these sources and your own knowledge, consider the view that the issues in Ireland were too complex to be solved even by a Home Rule Act. (60)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE B a) b) c)

How accurately does Lord Salisbury sum up the Conservative view of the problems of Ireland? (5) Explain the importance of the career of Charles Stewart Parnell in the history of Irish Home Rule. (7) To what extent and in what ways were Conservative attitudes and policies towards Ireland different from those of the Liberals? (18)

You may decide to use a sentence from source D as a stimulus for a question of the kind used in AQA questions

2. The question of Ulster, 1912–14 Source E: Andrew Bonar Law speaking at Blenheim Palace, 29 July 1912

In our opposition . . . We shall not be guided by the considerations or bound by the restraints which would influence us in an ordinary constitutional struggle. We shall take the means, whatever means seem to us most effective, to deprive them of the despotic power which they have usurped, and compel them to appeal to the people whom they have deceived. They may . . . carry their Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons but what then? I said the other day in the House of Commons and I repeat here, that there are things stronger than parliamentary majorities . . . In my belief, if an attempt were made to deprive [the Ulstermen] of their birthright – as part of a corrupt Parliamentary bargain – they would be justified in resisting such an attempt by all means in their power including force. I said it then and I repeat now with a full sense of the responsibility which attaches to my position, that, in my opinion, if such an attempt is made, I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them, and in which, in my belief, they would not be supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people.

248 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921 Source F: Ulster’s Solemn League and Covenant, as declared by Carson, 19 September 1912

Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material wellbeing of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in Solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the Right we hereto subscribe our names . . . God save the King. Source G: Asquith’s attitude as seen by modern historians

Asquith’s answer to these dangers was to do very little. Nationalists urged him to prosecute Carson for sedition, but that would simply have added martyr status to his cult one, as it had Parnell in 1881–2. For some historians Asquith’s policy of ‘wait and see’ in the face of such blatantly unconstitutional activity was part of a catalogue of failure. This stemmed back to his original blunder of not providing some type of separate treatment for Ulster in the original bill, through to doing nothing to prevent both sides arming themselves. An alternative view of Asquith’s tactics holds that his ‘masterly inactivity’ of tolerating the radicalisation of events was actually a method of cultivating a more ‘yielding’ attitude on both sides. Nothing, he believed, concentrated the mind for an eventual compromise more than the fear of civil war by all parties concerned. Furthermore, masterly inactivity by the prime minister put intense strain on the Ulster Unionist leadership. Asquith realised the growing tactical dilemma they were in, caught between a growing apprehension at the consequences of their extra-parliamentary campaign and an expectant popular movement in Ulster, reared on a blood-curdling diet of no-surrender and with little regard for the concept of compromise . . . In many ways the Ulster crisis had become a battle of nerves.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a) b) c) d)

In what sense had the Liberals made a ‘corrupt Parliamentary bargain’ (source E)? For what reasons, according to source G, did Asquith pursue a policy of ‘wait and see’? Compare the purpose and tone of sources E and F. How far do you consider that they fulfil their aims? Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the accuracy of the statement: ‘In 1912, Ireland was on the brink of civil war.’

(10) (25) (25) (60)

SOURCES • 249

a) The phrase ‘corrupt parliamentary bargain’ refers to the issues of the 1909 Budget and the dispute with the House of Lords. Although many Irish Nationalist MPs, as landowners, did not favour the land registration and land taxes elements of the 1909 Budget, they supported the Liberals to force it through and, in the two general elections of 1910, helped the Liberals maintain power, although they did not hold a party majority. The recompense which they demanded and obtained was Home Rule. b) Asquith proposed a policy of ‘wait and see’ because, first, to prosecute Carson would have enhanced his already considerable status. He was treated as an almost mythical figure: people treasured items he had touched and wept when he left their meetings. Second, Asquith hoped that the threat of civil war would induce both sides to move towards compromise, and in particular that the Ulster leadership would realise that they could not possibly go to war against the government of the king to whom they swore loyalty. Leaders who led the cries of ‘no surrender’ would be extremely reluctant to put it to the test. Although not mentioned by Jeremy Smith, it is possible that Asquith also wanted to force the Conservatives into the public eye, so that their irresponsible condoning of seditious words and acts would become known to the voting public. Asquith’s hope was that both sides would step back from the brink. Indeed, when the Great War began, Redmond was quick to declare the Nationalist campaign in abeyance; 50,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight and the Irish Nationalist forces were stood down. Whether Asquith’s policy of ‘wait and see’ would have worked without the Great War remains a matter of debate. c) The two sources are very different in purpose, and this is reflected in their tone. Source E is a public speech to an audience of followers, and one might imagine the cries of ‘hear, hear’ which would have punctuated it, while the other is a formal oath to be taken solemnly and without interruption. The purpose of Bonar Law’s speech was to rally Conservative support for the Ulster struggle, and its venue, Blenheim Palace, was associated with the late Randolph Churchill and his sloganising: ‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right.’ The purpose of source F was more formal and was to bind those who signed it to action and to disobey the constitutionally established government of Britain. The setting in which it was taken, like its name, refers to the past. It took its title from the Protestant opposition to the government in seventeenth-century Scotland, and was presented for signature beneath the standard used by William III at the battle of the Boyne, referring directly to the previous attempt by Catholics to subvert ‘our civil and religious freedom’ in 1688–9. Both sources use extremely emotive language. Bonar Law distances himself from the duly elected government by repeated use of words like ‘they, them, their’ as well as describing them with highly charged words such as ‘despotic’, ‘usurped’ and ‘corrupt’. At the same time, terms such as ‘birthright’ and ‘justified’ are designed to validate the potential Ulster struggle. The Covenant also makes use of highly charged language, such as ‘threatened calamity’ and ‘conspiracy’, as well as repeatedly invoking God and the King. The tone is much more solemn than that of the Blenheim speech. Bonar Law is speaking for himself, although claiming that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of British people think as he does. He admits, even while rejecting, the normal ‘restraints’ which should prevent the leader of the opposition condoning and even encouraging the use of force.

250 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

The Covenant puts words into the mouths of others – and hundreds of thousands of Ulstermen signed it. It is clear from this that the Covenant did fulfil its aim and express the deeply held feelings of the Protestants in Northern Ireland, while the effectiveness of Bonar Law’s tirade is less clear from the events which followed. Although some army officers did respond as Bonar Law would have wished and declared their refusal to obey some orders, there was no widespread support for an armed struggle among English people. d) The first of these sources, source E, certainly suggests that Ireland was on the brink of civil war. The leader of the opposition referred publicly to ‘things stronger than parliamentary majorities’ and ‘whatever means seem most effective’ and then declared that the Ulstermen would be justified in resisting by all means including force. Given the parity between the two parties in the Commons, the speech can certainly be seen as an endorsement of violent resistance. Bonar Law’s attitude was reflected in the behaviour of the army officers at the Curragh army base, whose socalled mutiny is not referred to in these sources. If the British army detachments on the spot had refused to carry out the will of the British Parliament, then civil war would have been the outcome. Source F indicates that Carson’s followers and those who took the Covenant were prepared to defend themselves and to use all means necessary to defeat the government. The references to the past also indicate a willingness to fight to maintain their existing status. The insistence on loyalty to the king rather than to his elected government suggests how they would have justified armed action. The main focus of source G is Asquith’s tactics in preventing civil war, but Dr Smith does refer to the ‘no surrender’ mood among the population of Protestant Ireland and mentions briefly the importation of armaments by both sides. It is worth noting, however, that the Ulstermen found much less difficulty in importing arms, for example at Larne and Donaghadee, than the Nationalists did. Source G also suggests that in the event the Ulster leadership would stop short of going to war against the government of the Union; but it is not clear whether Asquith would have attempted to use the armed forces against his own citizens. These sources do not discuss whether the Nationalists would have gone to war had the Home Rule Bill failed. Redmond might have been prepared to accept the temporary exclusion of some Ulster counties from a devolved government for Ireland; but the step he could easily have taken, forcing the resignation of Asquith’s government, would not have produced the result he wanted. The speed with which the Nationalist movement declared its loyalty to Britain on the outbreak of the Great War suggests that there was no support for a civil war to force Home Rule, a suggestion confirmed by the lack of any public enthusiasm for the Easter Rising in 1916. The Rising, however, is a reminder that Redmond did not control the whole Nationalist movement, and it seems possible that, if the border had been settled and Ulster excluded permanently in 1912, there might have been an armed response from the Nationalist side. But the greatest risk of civil war appears to have come from the combination of Carson’s Ulster followers with the public pronouncements of both Bonar Law and the British army commanders in Ireland. The impression conveyed by these sources is probably accurate: that the Ulstermen might have found themselves the victims of their own eloquence and at war against the Westminster

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 251

government had it not been for the intervention of the king with offers of all-party discussion, which ensured that nothing had been decided before the outbreak of European war in 1914 and the resultant suspension of all decisions.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the meaning of the term ‘sedition’ (source G). On what grounds could Carson have been prosecuted for sedition? (3) How convincing do you find source F as a piece of propaganda? (5) Do you think that source G is correct in approving Asquith’s ‘masterly inactivity’? (5) Is there any evidence in sources E and F that public opinion, either in England or in Ireland, was being reflected in what was said? (5) On the basis of these sources and your own knowledge, do you think it is true to say that Andrew Bonar Law behaved in an irresponsible way in 1912–14? (12)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE E a) b) c)

What was the purpose of Bonar Law’s speech at Blenheim Palace? (5) Explain the circumstances which made this Home Rule Bill more likely to pass into law than the previous two. (7) How and why were the attitudes of the Conservative Party concerning Home Rule different from those of the Liberal Party? (18)

Part 4: Historical skills ‘SWOT’ exercise It is often easy to regard what has happened in the past as the only possible outcome of developments then, even if the outcome has proved to be less than satisfactory, as is the case with decisions made about Ireland in the early years of the twentieth century. Although it is impossible to relive the actual mood and circumstances of the time, which made the settlement reached seem to be the best possible solution, it is interesting to consider other options, however far-fetched.

252 • THE IRISH QUESTION, 1845–1921

This exercise is designed to • • • • •

give you the opportunity to consider the issues in depth. focus your thinking on whether the problem was soluble in any way. discover more about the aspirations of the different groups. discuss possible options and scenarios, both within your group and in a plenary session with other groups. reach an agreed conclusion about what could have, or should have, been done about Ireland in the period you are studying.

WHAT TO DO

Below are various ‘solutions’ to the ‘Irish Question’ at the end of the nineteenth century. Add any other possible scenarios before proceeding. Each sub-group should select one and, with further reading, prepare a five-minute presentation, using the SWOT form of business exercises. This means that the presentation should look at the Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

of the proposed solution. At the plenary session, your group should be prepared to take questions from members of other groups. It is important to bear in mind the franchise of the 1890s, and to avoid anachronisms, whether of fact or of ‘mind-set’. THE POSSIBILITIES

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

Home Rule (or ‘Devolution’) for the whole of Ireland; self-government as far as home affairs are concerned, with limited revenue raising powers and a Parliament. Foreign policy issues and other major decisions to be taken by Westminster, where there would be some Irish representation. Bring Ireland back under control by a combination of firm policing, which tolerates no terrorism, and by dealing with all the grievances, of land, employment and equality. Dominion Status for all Ireland, as in Canada or New Zealand: Ireland would be responsible for all its own affairs, including defence, but would recognise the British monarch as head of state. Full independence for Ireland, as a republic outside the British Empire. Partition, with Ulster (defined as either the historic nine counties, or the Protestant four counties, or some other combination) remaining part of Britain, and Dominion Status or at least Home Rule for the rest of Ireland. Assisted ‘repatriation’ or removal of all Protestants who want to leave Ireland, to Scotland, or other parts of Britain; then Dominion Status or at least Home Rule for the whole of Ireland. Assisted ‘repatriation’ or removal of all Catholics out of Ulster, whether defined as the six counties or the nine counties; then continued Union for Ulster, and Dominion Status, or at least Home Rule for the rest of Ireland.

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 253

References for Chapter 6 1. 2. 3. 4.

Jeremy Smith, Britain and Ireland, From Home Rule to Independence, Longman, London, 2000, p. 75 Joel Mokyr, Why Ireland Starved, HarperCollins, London, 1982 W.E. Vaughan (ed.), A New History of Ireland: Ireland under the Union I 1801–1870, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 315 Quoted in George Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England 1910–14, Constable and Co., London, 1961, p. 86

Sources A. Freeman’s Journal, 20 September 1880, quoted in Jeremy Smith, Britain and Ireland, From Home Rule to Independence, Longman, London, 2000, p. 84 B. Reported in The Times, 17 May 1886 C. Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, CCCIV, cols 1038ff. D. Jonathan Parry, The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1993, p. 297 E. Quoted in R. Blake, The Unknown Prime Minister: The Life and Times of Andrew Bonar Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1955, p. 130 F. Quoted in Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England 1910–1914, Constable and Co., London, 1961, pp. 111–12 G. Jeremy Smith, Britain and Ireland, From Home Rule to Independence, Longman, London, 2000, p. 67

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 7

The Conservative Ascendancy? Britain, 1895–1906

256 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

This chapter is concerned with a shorter period than any of the foregoing chapters. But the decade which followed the resignation of Lord Rosebery also saw one of the most remarkable political developments of British history – the emergence of a completely new political party. The Conservative Party, too, went through an extraordinary recovery, followed by an apparent collapse, in 1905, from which they did not recover until 1922. During this same period the Liberal Party, which had appeared to be irrevocably split over the issue of Home Rule, recovered to form, in 1905, possibly the most important ministry in its history. This chapter examines these political developments, and the sources section offers an opportunity to consider the Conservative and Labour Parties. It also deals with the continuities of imperial and foreign policy, and the Skills section is about the war in South Africa.

Historical background The election of 1895 The Conservative Party in the late nineteenth century Local government and other reforms The birth of the Labour Party The trade unions The death of Queen Victoria The ‘khaki’ election Tariff reform and the election of 1905 The ‘Scramble for Africa’ The Boer War, 1899–1902 The end of isolation?

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The birth of the Labour Party The end of ‘Splendid Isolation’ The ‘Scramble for Africa’ The Boer War The Conservative defeat of 1905–6

Sources 1. 2.

The Conservative Party in the late nineteenth century The beginnings of the Labour Party

Historical skills Essays 1. 2. 3.

Lord Salisbury as prime minister The last years of Queen Victoria The Conservatives in the last years of the nineteenth century

The rights and wrongs of the Boer War 1. 2.

Research exercises Role play

THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906 • 257

Chronology 1895 1895 1895 1895 1896 1896 1896 1897 1897 1898 1898 1898 1899 1899– 1902 1900 1900 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1903 1903 1904 1905 1905 1905 1906

June, resignation of Rosebery and Liberals. Lord Salisbury as prime minister July, Conservative election victory Red Flag Act Ashanti War Rating relief for rural areas Venezuela crisis Beginning of war in the Sudan Diamond Jubilee Direct Grants Act for education Battle of Omdurman, dervishes defeated German Naval Law began naval arms race Fashoda incident London divided into 28 metropolitan boroughs Boer War General election: ‘khaki election’; Conservative Victory Boxer rebellion in China Taff Vale case Death of Queen Victoria Balfour’s Education Act Colonial conference: issue of tariff reform raised Anglo-Japanese alliance Salisbury’s retirement, replaced by Balfour as prime minister Motor Act State visit of Edward VII to Paris Licensing Act Entente Cordiale Building of first Dreadnought battleship December, general election: Liberal victory Liberal ministry took office

258 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

Part 1: Historical background 1 – developments at home The election of 1895 The Liberal government which came to power in 1892 had survived the second Irish Home Rule Bill’s failure and Gladstone’s resignation. But the party was uneasy under the relaxed and aristocratic rule of Lord Rosebery and the divisions within the party could not be hidden forever. The ministry was, for example, very divided over issues like Death Duties and raising the rate to 80 per cent on wealthy estates. In June 1895, following a defeat in the Commons, Rosebery resigned. Salisbury took over as prime minister and in the July election achieved a substantial majority: the Conservatives were returned with 340 seats and their supporters, the so-called Liberal Unionists, with 71. In contrast, the Liberals won only 177 seats, although they might expect to count on the support of the Irish Nationalists, who returned 82 MPs. The most disappointed group of all were the Independent Labour Party, whose 28 candidates were all defeated, including Keir Hardie in West Ham. Thus the Conservatives, against all expectation, were able to establish a stable and enduring ministry.

The Conservative Party in the late nineteenth century The Conservatives had found themselves weakened in the 1880s by a range of developments, some of which they had brought upon themselves, but many of which were beyond their control. The Education Acts from Forster’s 1870 Act onwards made the lower classes more politically aware, as the end of duties on newspapers gave them more information. The 1872 Secret Ballot Act, coupled with the 1883 Corrupt Practices Act, limited and controlled the management of elections, although the Conservatives, as time went on, were able to channel funds through the Primrose League which, since it was not a political grouping, was not subject to the controls which affected the parties. The Conservatives had developed, or allowed to develop, local associations, and from 1867 onwards there was some attempt to bring these together into a national union. From 1871, the headquarters of the National Union of Conservative Associations was in Smith Square, Figure 7.1 Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquis of Salisbury (1830–1903), prime minister. Painting by George Frederic Watts. You may like to compare this painting with the cartoon on p. 169

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 – DEVELOPMENTS AT HOME • 259 Figure 7.2 James Keir Hardie (1856–1915). Chalk drawing by Sylvia Pankhurst, who led the movement for votes for women in the East End of London

London, the party’s Central Office; but Conservatives continued to retain a great deal of local autonomy throughout this period. As the trade cycle turned down, poverty and deprivation grew, and it was recognised that private aristocratic philanthropy was not enough to deal with the enormous problems which arose. The progressive widening of the franchise meant that a majority of voters were neither income tax payers nor ratepayers, and so they would be persuadable (when socialism had made some progress) that a policy of high taxation and high public spending was desirable, which, it might be expected, would reduce the Conservative’s electoral chances. It is also worth noting that the concept of a ‘popular mandate’ began to develop, making it less likely that Parliament would be able to control government as it had in the past and that the possession of a majority at election would entitle the government to govern with less consultation and compromise. The Conservatives ruled with a substantial majority in the Commons, but also with unbroken assistance from the House of Lords. Salisbury led the ministry from the Lords, until his replacement by his nephew Arthur Balfour in 1902. Salisbury argued that it was legitimate for the Lords to block any controversial bill not approved by the people in a general election – and the 1894 Home Rule Bill was defeated by 419 votes to 41 – but effectively the Liberals when in power could get very little legislation through at all. The Conservatives were able to achieve some useful reforms; since increases in the local rates were unpopular with their property-owning supporters, these reforms tended to be backed by grant-in-aid from the centre. The reluctance to increase income tax meant that many Conservatives looked favourably on tariff reform – as it was to be called – or protectionism, since customs duties on imported goods would ease the tax burden. Frequently, however, the arguments about protection were couched in terms of protecting British jobs.

Local government and other reforms The 1894 Local Government Act established rural district councils effectively in the same areas which had formed the old Poor Law unions. The county councils took over the work of the School

260 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906 Figure 7.3 Arthur James Balfour, 1st earl of Balfour (1848–1930), prime minister

Boards under the 1902 Education Act, and the 1898 Irish Local Government Act was also seen as building on previous structures and providing a complete format for local government, which had been enjoyed by the municipal boroughs since the 1830s. In 1899, London was divided into 28 metropolitan boroughs, under the London County Council as established in 1888. The advantage of separate rating authorities was entirely on the side of the wealthier suburban areas, which now no longer subsidised the poorer areas. Also building on earlier reforms was the 1891 Elementary Education Act, which finally provided free education, an inevitable development from earlier acts which had made it compulsory. In 1889, technical education was expanded, with an act that enabled local authorities to use the rates to provide higher grade classes for deserving pupils. The 1902 Education Act went a long way to providing a logical and orderly structure, with local councils becoming responsible for education and grants being made to local voluntary schools. Secondary education now came within the reach of many more children. But the act was unpopular, both because it increased public spending and because of the grants it gave to Anglican schools, which infuriated the nonconformists. In Watford, for example, the fine new buildings of the Girls’ Endowed School, paid for under the new act, were opened without any public ceremonial because of local disapproval and the fear of hostile demonstrations. Meanwhile, rating relief for rural areas (1896) had been an attempt to help agriculture in its struggle against foreign and cheaper competition, and perhaps foreshadowed the Conservative interest in other forms of protection. As far as urban workers were concerned, the Conservatives introduced the Workmen’s Compensation Act (1897), which was designed to ensure that workers injured at work should be compensated by the negligent employer. Over the next few years, trades excluded from this first act, like seamen and domestic servants, were added, although most of them were unable to afford the litigation which was frequently necessary to force the employer to obey the law. The Conservatives were more than willing to undertake the ‘Spencer Programme’, the naval construction programme which had accelerated Gladstone’s resignation. Between 1894 and 1905, 60 battleships were ordered, and in 1905, the first dreadnought was built: the first all big-gun armoured warship. At the same time, the army reforms proceeded so that, mainly because of the Conservatives, by 1914 both the army and the navy were in reasonable shape The reform programme, limited though it was, indicated that the Conservatives felt confident, and indeed they appeared unassailable with their large majorities at general elections. There were, however, weaknesses and difficulties. First, part of the reason for the majorities was a weak Liberal

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 – DEVELOPMENTS AT HOME • 261

Party that was divided and poorly led; one measure of this is the number of uncontested seats which returned Conservatives: 225 in 1886, 189 in 1895 and 243 in 1900. When the Liberals recovered their confidence and their electoral determination, the Conservatives might suffer. The Conservatives were also bound to suffer from the depression in agriculture, which reduced the economic status of their main group of supporters. As these people moved to the towns, the poverty and dirt of the cities ensured that there would be a public demand for the kind of interventionist legislation that was completely antipathetic to Conservative thought. At the same time, as the electorate became more proletarian, the developing Labour Party would be bound to take votes in the remaining Conservative small boroughs. And the extended franchise, the secret ballot, and redistribution reduced the number of rural seats, leaving the trade unions with the only ‘pocket boroughs’ available.

The birth of the Labour Party The period of Conservative ascendancy is, paradoxically, the period during which the Labour Party developed. The existence of a party for working people had been made possible by the Conservative Second Reform Act of 1867. But not until the Redistribution Act of 1885, which did away with most of the large two-member consistencies, leaving some areas with an entirely workingclass electorate, was it essential for the Liberals to encourage working men to participate in politics. We may think it strange that a Labour Party did not emerge more rapidly after the 1884–5 reforms, but the ‘working classes’ were by no means united in their ideals and aims. Not until a mass trade union movement had had time to grow did parliamentary representation seem relevant or desirable. Paul Adelman1 suggests that an important ingredient was the growth of Socialism in the 1880s. In 1884 the old Etonian H.M. Hyndman established his Social Democratic Federation and the Fabian Society began to provide a forum for middle-class debate and publications, attracting such members as Annie Besant and George Bernard Shaw. Their declared aim was ‘the reconstruction of Society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities’. Named for the Roman general who eventually defeated Hannibal, the society’s methods were those of gradualism; but that should not make us think that its members were less than committed. Beatrice Webb was later to write (in 1938) that she had felt a ‘consciousness of sin . . . I do not mean the consciousness of personal sin . . . [but] a collective or class consciousness, a growing uneasiness, amounting to conviction, that the industrial organisation, which had yielded rent, interest and profits on a stupendous scale had failed to provide a decent livelihood and tolerable conditions for a majority of the inhabitants of Great Britain’.2 But the educated middle classes alone could not galvanise the working people into political awareness. Although some working men made attempts to do so, they were unsuccessful at first. It was clear that the trade unions would have to become involved if there was to be mass support, not to mention funding.

The trade unions The unions were interested because they were under very dangerous attack. Employers were forming themselves into associations, and they had the finances to fund press attacks on unionism and, more dangerously, to use non-union labour. In 1893, the National Free Labour Association was established by a group of employers; although it used the lawcourts and the press to attack

262 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

the unions, its most dangerous activity was providing blackleg labour in disputes all over the country, although this inevitably damaged the unskilled rather than the skilled workers. A spate of lockouts forced down wages, in the coal and cotton industries during 1893 and in the boot and shoe trade during 1895. The TUC had adopted demands like the eight-hour day, which came from these unskilled unions, but faced with the threat of unemployment and a virtual class war, they changed their policy towards the poorer workers. In 1895, a change of rules was pushed through to limit the influence of the mass unions: no one could be a delegate to the TUC who was not working at his trade or as a permanent paid employee of his union. At a stroke, the unions suffering from the downturn in the economy lost their places at the TUC. The more powerful unions were, however, to recognise that they needed the help of the mass unions as they came under attack in the law courts. The Appeal Court, in the case of Lyons vs Wilkins in 1899 had threatened the trade unions by severely limited the right of peaceful picketing, thus making striking less effective. It is not surprising that the trade union movement decided to move into politics. And that meant funding candidates. MPs were unpaid, but the trade unions as a whole had funds amounting to more than £3 million. The TUC conference in 1899 agreed, despite the coal and cotton unions voting against it, that the TUC should ‘devise ways and means for securing the return of an increased number of Labour members to the next Parliament’.3 In the first year of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), less than 10 per cent of the total union membership became affiliated, and the attempt to get working men into Parliament in large numbers would have failed had it not been for the Taff Vale dispute of June 1900. When members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (ASRS) went on strike in South Wales, the employers not only made use of blackleg labour, but took the union to court demanding damages. Long after the workers were back on the railway, the trade union movement awaited a decision which, when it finally came in July 1901, meant that all unions faced ruin. The House of Lords declared that the ASRS was liable to cover the losses endured during the strike; at the same time, the limits on peaceful picketing were confirmed. The reaction of the LRC was to increase the subscription from affiliated unions and to provide a fund for paying MPs while they campaigned for state payment. One beneficiary of the LRC’s increased efforts was the Conservative Party, which won some seats as a result of splits in the non-Conservative vote. The Liberals therefore agreed (but kept secret) a pact which ensured that some constituencies would be contested by either the LRC or the Liberals but not both. The outcome was that 30 MPs were elected from the LRC as part of the ‘Liberal Landslide’. The close links forged between Trade Unionism and the LRC by the hostile actions of the employers and courts had come to fruition.

The death of Queen Victoria In 1901, Queen Victoria died. Her 64-year reign had spanned enormous changes and she had supplied a sense of stability and been the embodiment of the imperialism which had grown so strong during the last decades of her reign. Even during the years of her mourning, when she had neglected her public duties, public support for the monarchy had never completely evaporated, and, in the latter years of her reign, this may have helped the Conservatives, as her Tory bias had been strengthened by her dislike of Gladstone. Certainly her fiftieth and sixtieth anniversary celebrations had been turned into celebrations of Empire and tradition which naturally reflected

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 – DEVELOPMENTS AT HOME • 263 Figure 7.4 Queen Victoria’s funeral, the coffin arrives at St George’s Chapel, 1901

Conservative values. In contrast, her son Edward VII, during his long apprenticeship, had inclined to the Liberals, although he took less interest in domestic policies than she had done.

The ‘khaki’ election Trouble had begun for the Conservatives shortly after the ‘khaki’ election of 1900 which, in the excitement and patriotism generated first by the Diamond Jubilee and then by the Boer War, returned them to power with a further substantial majority (402 seats including the Unionists, against the Liberals’ 184). But although the Boer War was won (see below), the costs had been greater than anyone could have expected, and the war had revealed divisions and weaknesses unsuspected before. An incredible 33 per cent of volunteers at the recruiting stations had been rejected as medically unfit. The £200 million cost meant that taxation levels increased from 9 per cent to 15 per cent of GNP. The use of ‘concentration’ camps for Boer civilians, and Chinese indentured labourers (or ‘slaves’ as the Liberal press described them) in the mines of the Rand, made the government appear callous and brutal. The queen’s death was followed by a change of prime minister, when Arthur Balfour, Salisbury’s nephew, took over in 1902, and a sense of instability affected the Conservative Party.

264 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

Tariff reform and the election of 1905 The Conservatives, concerned at the cost of government as well as wishing to provide protection for British industries and agriculture, were again beginning to consider tariff reform. The Colonial Conference held at the time of the Coronation had discussed, but failed to agree upon, a system of ‘imperial preference’ and the public remained instinctively against protective tariffs that seemed likely to increase the price of food. The divisions within the party as well as the proposal of tariff reform contributed to a defeat in the 1906 general election equal to their previous victories. Balfour had resigned in 1905, hoping that divisions over the Liberal Party leadership would be enough to return the Conservatives once more. Instead, the Liberals won 400 seats, although these included some Lib–Lab MPs who moved to join the new Labour Party while still voting with the Liberals. The Conservatives were reduced to 156 MPs. They were not to win a House of Commons majority again until 1922. The Conservatives in 1906 may have realised from the size of the Liberal vote that they would be in opposition for some time. Arthur Balfour was the first opposition leader to summon ‘shadow’ cabinets on a regular basis, but Conservative leaders both before and after have been inclined to operate by consensus and consultation, particularly with the ‘elders’ of the party.

Part 1: Historical background 2 – foreign and imperial developments The ‘Scramble for Africa’ Until the 1890s, Britain’s holdings in Africa were limited to a few commercial ventures in West Africa, centred on the city of Lagos, annexed in 1861, together with the possessions which guarded the Suez Canal route to India and safeguarded the Cape Colony in the south. During the 1890s, however, large areas of Africa were acquired by European powers, in what became known at the time as the ‘Scramble for Africa’. As the maps in this chapter show, by 1902 Britain had gained over 4 million square miles and almost 90 million people in Africa, had risked war against France, and been involved in war in southern Africa.

The Boer War, 1899–1902 Britain had been content, under Gladstone, to allow the Boers a form of home rule, although the construction in the 1890s of a railway line from Pretoria to the sea at Delagoa Bay in Portuguese Mozambique was a matter of concern, since it ended the Boers’ dependence on Cape Colony and Natal. More damaging, however, was the discovery of gold in Witwatersrand near Johannesburg. The inevitable gold rush brought into the Boer areas large numbers of uncouth fortune hunters, who disrupted the orderly life preferred by the Boers. These Uitlanders, as they were known, were denied the right to vote by the Boers, and this offered Cecil Rhodes an opportunity to achieve his ambition of regaining control of the Boer lands for Britain. Rhodes, as president of Cape Colony,

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2 – FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENTS • 265 Figure 7.5 Map of South Africa Belgian Congo

German East Africa Nyasaland

Angola (Portuguese)

se

ue

(British)

)

ish) rit (B

Northern Rhodesia

Moz am bi q

Southern Rhodesia

German South West Africa

(British)

ue

(P

tu or

Indian Ocean

Bechuanaland (British)

r ive

po po

Li

R

g

m

Lim

po po

Transvaal Mafeking Johannesburg Witwatersrand

Pretoria Delagoa Bay

Vereeniging r ive

Griqualand Kimberley

lR

a Va

Swaziland

Majuba Hill

Bloemfontein

Rorke’s Drift Ladysmith

Natal Atlantic Ocean

Durban

Orange Free State Basutoland Cape Colony

Boer areas Town

Cape Town Port Elizabeth

Battle

tried to organise a rising by the Uitlanders as an excuse to send in troops under his friend Dr Jameson. Although the Jameson Raid failed, war was bound to come, and when it came in 1899 it was long, drawn-out and bloody. After initial Boer advances, assisted by German and French support and by volunteers from Ireland, the sheer weight of British numbers began to tell and the besieged cities of Ladysmith, Mafeking and Kimberley were relieved. The Boer guerrilla tactics prolonged the war with great brutality on both sides, perhaps most notoriously the British use of ‘concentration camps’ to house Boer civilians and thus cut off support from the fighters. In May 1902, a peace treaty was signed at Vereeniging which, uniquely in the history of war, included reparations from the victors to the defeated. The injustice of annexing the republics was to be recognised by the Liberal government, who hastened to restore Home Rule in 1906–7 and followed this up in 1910 by establishing the federal Union of South Africa, with Dominion Status. The hard-won victory of 1902 was soon consigned to the oblivion of an embarrassing past.

266 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906 Figure 7.6 Map illustrating the presence of the European powers in Africa before the Scramble for Africa, 1878

Cyprus

Algeria Tunisia

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Gambia Portuguese Guinea Cotonou (Fr.) Lagos

Liberia

Ivory Gold Coast Coast

Spanish Guinea Gabon

Angola

Orange Transvaal Free State

French British Spanish Portuguese Boer

Cyprus

French British Spanish Portuguese German Italian Belgian Independent

Portuguese East Africa

Walvis Bay (Br.)

Griqualand West

Cape Colony

Natal

Figure 7.7 Map illustrating the presence of the European powers in Africa after the Scramble, 1914

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2 – FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENTS • 267

The end of isolation? The term ‘Splendid Isolation’ has been used to describe Britain’s policies in the latter part of the nineteenth century, when she avoided binding alliances of any kind. This has been interpreted as a sign of strength: given her huge Empire, Britain had no need of chancy foreign friendships. But it has also been suggested that Britain was too unpopular to be able to make lasting alliances. It is a measure of Salisbury’s skill as a foreign policy director that he was able to prise France free of its German alliance, which had arisen over bitterness at Britain’s Egyptian policies. He recognised that policies which might have worked for an island nation with a huge navy were less appropriate for a large land empire in the age of the railway and rapid transport of troops and materiel. The 1889 Naval Defence Act, establishing the ‘two power standard’ for the Royal Navy, was an ambitious statement of British determination to preserve its Empire against all comers. It was also the beginning of a recognition that Germany, particularly after the departure of Bismarck, would become a serious challenge. The ‘Kruger telegram’ of 1896, by which the Kaiser congratulated the Boer leader on his dealing with the Jameson Raid, was followed by the Germans seizing Kiaochow in 1898. It seemed as if the Germans might lead a move to partition China: Russia took the opportunity to extend its holdings in Manchuria, while Britain gained only the minor port of Weihaiwei. France remained a threat, and the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 caused some to think that Britain should take action to safeguard Turkey. British public opinion had turned against the sultan, following news of atrocities against the Armenians, and Salisbury was not prepared to commit the Royal Navy to protect Constantinople in the absence of a concrete threat. Nor did he succeed in bringing moral international pressure to bear on the Turks. For these reasons, the earlier Mediterranean agreements were not turned into a binding alliance. Two agreements were signed, however, both with a focus on the Empire and on particular imperial issues. In 1899, the Anglo-Portuguese agreement committed Britain to protecting the Portuguese Empire. Depicted as a renewal of Britain’s oldest foreign friendship, on Britain’s part it was a solution to a single issue: the Portuguese agreed in return to block the Boers from using the Delagoa Bay Railway, thus reinforcing their dependence on Cape Colony. More far-ranging in its detail and more unexpected was the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902. The treaty was a direct response to the cost of naval rebuilding and to the Russian threat in the Far East, as signalled by their annexation of parts of Manchuria. Each signatory committed itself to remaining neutral in any conflict between the other and a single enemy, but to direct assistance if there was a conflict with more than one other power. This agreement proved its worth when Russia was defeated by Japan in the war of 1904–5. The last and most surprising act of Conservative foreign policy was the Anglo-French ‘Entente Cordiale’ of April 1904. Britain recognised the need to resolve some of its many disputes with France, a process made easier following a very successful state visit to Paris by the new king, Edward VII. Meanwhile the French, who were committed to helping Russia if it faced more than one enemy, were anxious to ensure that Britain had no reason to go to the assistance of her ally Japan. The Entente appeared to be almost entirely concerned with imperial matters: Britain recognised French claims in Morocco, France reciprocated by accepting the British hold on Egypt, and it was agreed that Thailand (then Siam) should be a buffer between British interests in Burma and

268 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

French Indochina. Issues about Madagascar, Newfoundland and the New Hebrides were also discussed, but nothing closer to home. However, it was in the Mediterranean that the Entente was put to the test in 1905 when the Kaiser visited Morocco and made a speech indicating that he would favour Moroccan independence. Britain’s clear support for France led to an international conference at Algeciras, at which France’s interests in Morocco were recognised. It was from this point on that talks between the military authorities in France began in secret, a demonstration that they shared the belief that Germany was the danger in the future. The Conservative policy of dealing with each crisis as it arose had imperceptibly shaded into alliances with France and Japan, in the face of German Weltpolitik. Thus, by the time the Conservatives fell from power at the end of 1905, Britain was set on a foreign policy path leading directly into war in 1914. The extent of consensus between the two parties can be seen by the way the Liberals adhered to and strengthened the treaty network established by the Conservatives.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts. Of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. Lord Salisbury as prime minister a) b)

What were the main achievements of Lord Salisbury as Prime Minister? (15 marks) Do you agree with the view that the Conservatives ‘were looking backwards rather than forwards’ under Salisbury’s leadership? (15 marks)

a) Salisbury’s key achievement was to demonstrate that the Conservative Party could still be a party of government, despite Disraeli’s death and the long dominance of Gladstone and the Liberals. Disraeli had led the party in his own inimitable way, making use of his close relationship with the queen as a substitute for following the required mechanisms; Salisbury had to make not only a relationship with the queen but also a relationship with his own party. He took the joint offices of prime minister and foreign secretary for much of his time in power, and his approach to domestic matters was relaxed and distant. His main achievement was to normalise relationships with Ireland after Home Rule had been rejected on two occasions. His view that Ireland needed ‘resolute government’ could have driven the Irish into all-out revolution, but he tempered firm policing with far-sighted land reforms, which removed the greatest non-political grievance for the Irish. The Land Purchase legislation was intelligent and thoroughly backed with funds and expertise. But his face was firmly set against Home Rule, and he encouraged the House of Lords to reject the second Home Rule Bill, thus setting in train a way of frustrating Liberal aims which was to result, ten years after his retirement from politics, in the permanent reduction of the power for the Lords. He welcomed the rebel

ESSAYS • 269

Liberal Unionists as parliamentary allies, paving the way for them to join with the Conservatives. Had he realised the influence that the renegade Joseph Chamberlain would have on the party later, he might have hesitated. A modest programme of domestic reforms was also undertaken by Salisbury’s ministries. Accepting the Liberal conviction that education was essential, the Conservatives under Salisbury took the logical final step in making elementary education free for all and, in 1897, opened the door to secondary education for a very select number of able children. The direct grants from central government enabled some schools of ancient foundation to admit children who could overcome the hurdles of that Liberal ideal, the competitive examination. For over half a century, until 1975, the direct grant re-opened schools of the Guilds and other ancient foundations to the people for whom they had been originally designed, provided they were extremely able. Balfour expanded the availability of secondary education and put it into the hands of the county councils. Salisbury also continued other Liberal and Disraelian programmes of reform, shortening working hours, and improving the lot of workers injured at work. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1897 stated that a worker could claim against his employer unless the employer could demonstrate that there had been no negligence. Under the previous system, which required the worker to prove negligence, the expense and complexity of litigation had, in effect, protected the employer from claims. A forward-looking piece of legislation recognised the unstoppable advance of the internal combustion engine by repealing the Red Flag Act which, since 1865, had limited road vehicles to the walking pace of the person required to precede them with a warning flag. Now the speed limit was raised to an exciting 14mph, although it was Salisbury’s successor, Balfour, who further formalised road traffic by introducing licences and number plates as well as an even faster maximum speed of 20mph (1904). Salisbury’s main achievements, in his own eyes, were those of foreign policy. He brought Britain gently out of its supposed isolation, making limited and specific agreements over security in the Mediterranean and exercising a magisterial and effective oversight of foreign developments. He was able to avoid war on two occasions: over the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana (Guyana) in 1896, when he managed to negotiate a settlement before the United States became too dangerously involved; and, two years later, against France at Fashoda. Salisbury remained calm when news arrived in Europe that a French force was advancing towards the Nile, and by speedy and thoughtful negotiation was able to ensure that the force was withdrawn. Over South Africa, however, he proved less able to control his own ministers. The colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, appears to have encouraged the belligerent behaviour of both Lord Milner and Cecil Rhodes, and the war which erupted, while giving the Conservatives an imperialist boost at the 1900 election, soon proved both expensive and unpopular. At the same time, the costs of the 1900 Boxer rebellion in China and the need to meet the German naval construction threat after the 1898 German Naval Law, meant that expenditure was greater than Conservatives, whether voters or politicians, approved. The attraction of tariff reform to ensure greater revenue began to be described, and Salisbury’s failure to bring the tariff reformers under control contributed to his party’s defeat at the 1905 election.

270 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

b) Salisbury’s apparent status as a traditional Conservative leader is belied by the fact that his two notable predecessors, Disraeli and Peel, were not landed aristocrats or members of ancient families. But the choice of Salisbury as leader may indicate that the Conservative Party was looking back to some mythic past. Certainly the tariff reform dream appeared to refer to the pre-Peel days of the Corn Law and proper protection from foreign competition for both agriculture and industry. The attempt to sway the Dominions to imperial preference, though unsuccessful, was a further suggestion of a paternalist imperial power steering its overseas possessions in directions which would favour the home economy. Enthusiasm for new lands abroad, as attained during the Scramble for Africa, merely continued the avid accretion of land in the Far East. On the other hand, the Conservatives began to look forward to a foreign policy which allowed the country to have allies abroad, and even to rely upon them for assistance when confronted with overseas problems. The hostile European reactions to the Boer War provided a salutary warning of the dangers of continued isolation. The Conservative Party also appeared to be looking backwards as far as Ireland was concerned. The conviction that the settlement of individual grievances would lead to peace completely overlooked the way that Irish affairs had moved on to a mainly political and nationalist phase, regardless of economic circumstances. The fact that the Conservatives had relied upon the House of Lords to frustrate the will of electorate is a further indication that the party was unhappy with the modern look of politics in Britain. Although the Conservative Party was increasingly willing to use women in the organising and running of its local associations, and in the fund-raising activities of the Primrose League, they were unable to believe that women could play a substantive part in the political life of the country. They entirely rejected the possibility of forging an alliance with the moderates seeking the franchise for some women at least. This is not to suggest that the Liberal Party was more forwardlooking on this issue, but it does suggest a failure to recognise a possible substantial class of supporters. Since the emancipation of women, over the whole of the twentieth century, women who exercise their right to vote have tended to vote Conservative. In their domestic legislation, the Conservatives were more forward-looking. Their approach to private transport concerned only the wealthy at this stage, since cars were items of extreme luxury, but fulfilled their aim to reduce rather than increase regulation, while modestly enhancing revenue by licensing motors. Their educational reforms moved forward schooling for the poor in a significant way; once certain working-class children were being educated, the extension rather than contraction of the system was inevitable. The same applies to their workplace reforms in which there is no indication that they longed for the unregulated and dangerous past. The Conservative Party’s willingness to welcome the rebel Unionists and to toy with new ideas of revenue collection ensured the party’s defeat in the 1905 election, but their policies on the whole had been consolidating rather than radical.

ESSAYS • 271

a) b)

To what extent were the Conservatives a united party in the last decades of the nineteenth century? (30 marks) Do you think that Lord Salisbury deserves to be called ‘a great prime minister’? (60 marks)

It is perhaps worth pointing out in your introduction that party unity was a less formal concept in the nineteenth century than it is in modern times. You then need to consider the issues which divided Conservatives, and the disturbing influence of the influx of ‘Unionists’ from the Liberal Party. The link with part (b) is the extent to which Salisbury was able to hold the party together and to develop relevant and sound policies for Britain. Your essay should include examples of policies, both at home and abroad, which may reflect favourably on Salisbury’s leadership. Your evaluation should embody your views of what ‘greatness’ is in a prime minister.

2. The last years of Queen Victoria a) b)

What part did Queen Victoria play in the life of her country in the last years of her reign? Did Victoria leave the monarchy stronger or weaker than it had been when she came to the throne?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The last years of Queen Victoria’s reign saw her emerge from the long self-imposed seclusion of her widowhood and play a more active public role. Her two Jubilees, in particular, brought her into the public eye, and the people appear to have warmed, not just to the imperial spectacle, but also to the small, ageing figure who was the centre of it all. Albert had argued that the monarchy should provide a focus for such rituals and, by the end of her reign, Victoria was again fulfilling his vision, although some foreign visitors remarked, in 1897, that it was a pity she was wearing a bonnet and not her crown. She was, of course, the embodiment of Empire, having become Empress of India in 1876 as part of Disraeli’s attempts to galvanise her out of her sorrow; for the rest of her life, she was interested in her Indian people, surrounding herself not just with Indian artefacts at Osborne House, her holiday home in the Isle of Wight, but also with Indian servants and portraits and photographs of her sub-kings in the sub-continent. Although reluctant to trust the Prince of Wales with public duties which might train him for his future role, he was sent on a royal visit to India, which was a great success in terms of both the reception he received in India and the favourable press coverage in Britain. He enjoyed foreign travel and was to make more visits when he became king. Victoria’s involvement in other foreign affairs in these later years of her reign were associated with her own likes and dislikes. As well as arranging marriages for her numerous children, her friendship with Napoleon III had been a factor in the less friendly relationships with Prussia. The ex-emperor’s son served in the British army. She was conscious of her duty when it came to

272 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

entertaining foreign dignitaries, even when she was disinclined to do so. Her affection for her own soldiers, shown by establishing the Victoria Cross (the only decoration which applies equally to all ranks) was also demonstrated by her interest in the researches and reforms of Florence Nightingale that led to improved conditions for wounded soldiers. Her concern for the troops became virtually a tradition, with Queen Alexandra giving her patronage to the army nurses who bear her name, and Queen Mary sending gifts to the front line troops during the First World War. At home, she continued to carry out her constitutional duties in the serious way her husband had encouraged. Even when she was unwell, or in seclusion, she read the documents she was required to sign, annotated them and occasionally influenced them. Her personal preferences, though marked, were not allowed to affect the parties’ choice of leadership, but it is clear that when she could get on with a leader, government went more smoothly. The replacement of Gladstone, whom she disliked, with Rosebery, made her relationships with the Liberal leadership more cordial. The analysis by Walter Bagehot, in his The English Constitution of 1867, declared the monarchy to be the stabilising and cohesive force in the constitution, and Victoria attempted to fulfil that role. Her domestic life was a matter of some influence, too. If respectability and the family are the keynotes of the so-called Victorian age, it is in no small part thanks to the queen. b) It seems to be certain that the monarchy was stronger in 1901 than it had been in 1837. Victoria inherited a throne which had been shaken by the madness of her great uncle, and the peculiar personal morals of two of her uncles in turn. Following a reign of remarkable length and stability, she left it to her son, and the straight line of succession was restored, for the next century at least. After the scandals of George IV and William IV, Victoria’s keynote was respectability, made easier in the first two decades of her reign by her loving marriage and sizeable family. The rumours that circulated in the latter years of her reign concerning her relationship with her highland servant, Brown, were more connected with favouritism than with suspicions of actual sexual misconduct, and the damage done was slight. Indeed, her reign appeared a little dull, which smoothed the accession of her son, the ageing playboy Edward VII. His predilection for music hall artistes, gambling and personal enjoyment provided a pleasant change from the earnest worthiness of the queen–empress. But his short reign soon made way for his hardworking and conscientious son, George V, and the fortunate circumstances of Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 ensured that there was no repeat of playboy monarchy. The tone of the twentieth-century monarchy, if not of the family’s personal lives, has been exactly as Victoria had demonstrated. The survival of and increased respect for the monarchy during Victoria’s reign possibly influenced Europe. The French, having removed three different monarchies by revolution, nevertheless made one further attempt, before the forced abdication of Napoleon III finally turned France into a republic. And as the Balkan peoples gradually acquired their independence from the Ottoman Empire, they turned to monarchy as their structure, often looking to the German states which had produced Victoria, as well as several of her sons-in-law, and which had princes to spare. Victoria proved able to accept the diminished role of the monarchy, as the House of Commons expanded its power and came to represent more of the British people. But this was not because of indifference. She was interested and dutiful, with a clear awareness of her constitutional position.

ESSAYS • 273

Her frequent quarrels with Palmerston over protocol and consultation were not repeated with later foreign secretaries, because they accepted and valued her comments on their actions and intentions. Her personal dealings with the prime ministers undoubtedly influenced the politics of her reign, although the politician with whom, after Lord Melbourne, she had the warmest relationship, Disraeli, was only briefly in power. It has been suggested that the Royal Titles Act was her idea; at the least it could be seen as a reward for her acceptance of Disraeli’s failure to follow the proper procedures when buying the Suez Canal shares. In a nation which might have fallen apart as the Irish demanded greater amounts of autonomy, Victoria expressed her interest, visiting Ireland despite the supposed risks, while arguing that the United Kingdom must remain united. Her personal fondness for Scotland also strengthened the ties which held together the disparate peoples of Britain. Although less interested in science and technology than her husband, she continued to meet and converse with leaders in the field, partly for his sake, and thus ensured that the monarchy was seen as a leading part of the nation’s cultural life. She welcomed Mendelssohn and encouraged the composers of the British school. Queen Victoria also steadied and supported the Church of England during the uncertain period of the Oxford Movement, when it appeared that the Catholic Church might overwhelm the Anglican tradition. Her religious faith appears to have been strong; she was shocked at the possibility that Charles Bradlaugh, an atheist, might sit in ‘her’ Parliament without acknowledging the importance of daily prayers; and her commitment to the Church established by her ancestors was significant both in its history and in the maintenance of a strong monarchy. Victoria’s strengthening role in the history of the British monarchy was confirmed in the decades after her death, when European ruling families disappeared wholesale. The tsar was overthrown by defeat in war, as were the emperors of Austria-Hungary and of Germany, and the sultan of Turkey. Had the monarchy been unpopular, or seen as redundant, Britain might have decided, in victory, to follow the trend. Victoria’s conscientious hard work over more than six decades had produced a monarchy strong enough to withstand even the arrival of full popular democracy.

a) b)

How far did the golden and diamond jubilees of Queen Victoria reflect the public mood at the time? (15 marks) To what extent had the monarchy become irrelevant by the start of the twentieth century? (15 marks)

A definition of the word ‘jubilee’ and an explanation of the purpose of the celebrations will give you a focus for the different aspects of ‘public mood’: the status of the queen and royal family at the end of the nineteenth century; public attitudes to the Empire; the extent to which any cohesive national feeling existed. Thus part (b) can begin by evaluating the extent to which the monarchy embodied such national feelings. You also need to consider the practical functions of the monarchy, both as an icon for imperial and domestic aspirations and in the formal processes of the constitutional system. The fact of the queen’s long mourning period may be relevant, and public disaffection given the high cost of the expanding royal family. You may decide to look ahead to moments (such as the constitutional crisis of 1909–10) when the monarchy demonstrated its continued usefulness and relevance.

274 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

3. The Conservatives in the last years of the nineteenth century a) b)

Who supported the Conservative Party in the elections of 1895 and 1900? To what extent did the Conservative governments of these years fulfil the expectations of the voters?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The Conservative Party achieved sizeable majorities in the elections of 1895 and 1900, indicating that they were in tune with the voters’ aspirations. This is the more remarkable when we consider that the electorate had been almost doubled by the Reform Act of 1884 and that the Secret Ballot Act had made it less likely that these new voters would obey instructions from their landlords and employers. Conservatism was the predicted choice for those who approved of tradition, the monarchy, the Empire, the established Church and the land. In both 1895 and 1900, the monarchy was experiencing a resurgence in popularity, following the excitement generated by the Jubilees of 1887 and 1897. The Empire had grown in a way which allowed British people pride, as they learned in schools, or read in the newspapers about an Empire ‘on which the sun never set’. Africa had been almost completely occupied, mostly to Britain’s advantage, and the Conservatives reaped the benefit in 1895; in 1900, the ‘Khaki’ election was fought entirely on the platform of patriotism and backing up the troops fighting in the Boer War; as if that was not enough, the Chinese were being ‘disciplined’ in a way that appealed to the naturally chauvinistic section of the population. The Church of England was recovering its composure as the momentum of the Oxford movement died down from the 1880s onwards, and parish clergy often recommended a Conservative vote to their flocks. As far as the land was concerned, the agricultural depression was gradually lifting and, in any case, of the two parties, it was certainly not the Liberals who were seen as the party likely to assist the beleaguered agriculture industry. Although a majority in the Commons had favoured the second Home Rule Bill, it is unclear that this reflected a majority in the country. Certainly, many constituencies represented by Liberal Unionists re-elected their members in 1895, which may suggest that these voters, at least, resented the fact that Irish Nationalist MPs had swayed the result in the Commons. In the imperialist mood of the 1890s, a substantial number of British voters might be hostile to the idea of ‘giving up’ Ireland. The Redistribution Act of 1885 had a striking impact on the voter profile of the Conservative Party, and this was reflected in these two elections. The enormous ‘two-member’ constituencies, which encompassed most industrial towns, were broken into single-member seats. As a result, suburbs were represented by MPs of their own, separate from the inner city constituencies. Thus the ‘rising’ middle classes supported Conservative candidates, to distinguish themselves from workers in industrial areas who were likely to vote either Liberal or possibly Labour. The election of 1895, however, indicated how very far the concept of Labour MPs had to go: all 28 men who stood as Labour candidates were defeated. Perhaps more striking is the fact that, at both these elections, substantial numbers of constituencies were uncontested, mostly in areas where the

ESSAYS • 275

Conservatives won. Meanwhile, in the countryside, the rural workers generally continued vote for ‘their betters’, since their lives were so bound up with those who both employed and housed them. A further issue which may have swayed support in favour of the Conservatives was the leadership. After the long years of Gladstone, the Liberal leadership passed to Lord Rosebery, and there seemed to be an uncertainty in the Liberal Party similar to that experienced by the Conservatives following the death of Disraeli. By 1895, Salisbury was the established leader, confronting a less familiar one. b) The Conservatives therefore won two elections running supported by those whose image of Britain was a traditional and stable one, and their policies attempted to reflect the aspirations of those voters. Their failure to do all that was expected was punished in the 1905 election, when they lost dramatically. As far as the Empire was concerned, the Conservatives attempted to live up to the hopes of their backers. The 1897 showpiece, the Diamond Jubilee, was a popular success and reflected the imperialists’ high hopes. The successful outcome of the Fashoda incident and the triumphant victory at Omdurman in 1898, with the acquisition of the whole of the Sudan, were matters of great pride. The initial attitude to the Boer War demonstrated the same instinct of world domination which suggested that no one had the right to resist British ambitions, and the surge of patriotism which accompanied the war swept the Conservatives back in 1900. The Unionist contingent of the Conservative vote was pleased with the Conservatives’ work in Ireland. The refusal to countenance any move towards Home Rule was slightly modified by the Irish local government reforms, but the main focus was that of firm policing and the solution of specific grievances. The effect of the Conservative years in Ireland may have been to make the British electorate lose interest in the question. Certainly, it was not an election issue, other than among the Irish themselves, at the elections of 1905 and 1910. As far as problems in the agricultural sector were concerned, the Conservatives were not able to achieve a solution. Discussions about rating relief were a start, but issues regarding overseas competition were insoluble. The economies of scale possible in the huge areas of Canada, the USA and Australia meant that British cereal and livestock producers could not compete on the international market, and the free trade policies meant that even home markets were threatened. The Conservative flirting with tariff reform and imperial preference would not have solved farmers’ problems, even if the urban majority had been prepared to accept it. When the 1905 election came, very few of the seats that had been uncontested in 1900 remained uncontested, indicating a strong support for free trade. Domestic reforms were generally meritocratic in their targets. Children who were able and prepared to work hard could advance in education, while at the same time the rights of the Church of England were preserved in the continuation of religious instruction in all schools, subject only to parental rights to withdraw. The protection of workers who were suffering injustice was regarded as reasonable, and compensation for injured workers was accepted as fair. In some areas, reforms were more far-reaching: the 1900 Mines Regulation Act was a measure which would have amazed earlier Conservative mine owners, since it provided greater safety and health control than ever

276 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

before. At the same time, various laws put further powers into the hands of local authorities, who were prepared to recommend reforms to their ratepayers or to apply for grants-in-aid. An example of this local empowerment was in the greater provision of housing for the working classes, under the Act of 1890. Perhaps even more significant was extending humane attitudes into the workings of the Poor Law, with regulations which allowed fostering for pauper children rather than the workhouse and which encouraged higher rates of outdoor relief. The policies showed the Conservatives in their caring and paternalist guise, attractive to their supporters who hoped that this attitude would prevent the formation of potentially revolutionary working-class groups. Conservative voters were less enamoured of the increased size of both local and central government administrations, as the increased personnel meant a hugely increased wage bill. The Conservatives’ reverse in fortunes between their large majority in 1900 and their total defeat in 1905 were not matched by a loss of actual voters, but by contested elections in significant seats. The Conservative policies had not alienated their own supporters, rather they had galvanised serious opposition from previously apathetic voting groups.

a) b)

Who were ‘the natural supporters of Conservatism’ in the last decade of the nineteenth century? What policies were adopted by Conservative governments to satisfy these voters?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: The profile of a ‘typical supporter’ of the Conservative Party had changed over the century. By the 1890s, the number of voters had increased radically, and they were able to vote in secret, so who were they? Para 2: Wealthy people, because the Conservatives were not in favour of high taxation, so their supporters included some businessmen, bankers, industrialists etc. (e.g. like Rhodes); also property owners, particularly agriculturists, since Liberals were associated with towns, and professions. The rural working classes, too, often voted Conservative, for reasons of local deference and tradition. Para 3: Possible that some of the ‘new’ voters of 1867 and 1884 voted Conservative as an expression of their aspirations to respectability; especially if they were in favour of imperialism and enhancing British status abroad: Irish Unionists for instance. Para 4: Traditionalists of all kinds: supporters of the Church of England and the monarchy, because of their perception of an ancient constitution. b) Para 5: Home policies: some a bit surprising, but most of the social reforms were really consolidating earlier measures, and revenue methods like Death Duties were designed to avoid the greater evil of income tax. The monarchy was supported and lauded in the Jubilees, and a role found for the new king, e.g. his landmark visit to Paris. Para 6: Ireland: resolute government and avoiding any actual tackling of the issues, in the hope that there would be no trouble: suited the people who wanted things to be as they always had been.

ESSAYS • 277

Para 7: The Empire: expansion and aggression, e.g. in north east Africa, and especially in southern Africa; tentative moves towards ‘imperial preference’ can again be seen as part of the search for alternatives to income tax. Para 8: Foreign policy: defence and naval building, though the latter affected by the desire to avoid raising taxation; ending of isolation, though still no long-term alliances. Gradual change from pro-German to pro-French stance, which upset a number of traditionalists but was accepted as necessary. Conclusion: policies remaining much the same as they had ever been: perhaps appeared more moderate as developments of the Left of politics pushed in favour of more radical ideas elsewhere.

4. The birth of the Labour Party a) b)

Outline the stages by which the Labour Party came into existence. Why did the trade unions choose to acquire influence in this period by politics rather than by direct action?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) There was no possibility of a Labour Party until British working men were enfranchised in 1867 and 1884. But it is surprising that for twenty years after the extension of the vote across the male population, no such party was able to succeed. The Labour Party’s slow development arose partly because there were several different strands which needed to come together before an organisation could emerge. Help from the middle classes was needed at the start. The Liberal Party was willing to put forward working men to stand as their candidates, not least because it increased the Liberal candidates’ chances of being returned in the single-seat constituencies of the industrial towns. It was these ‘Lib–Lab’ men who pioneered the methods of influencing policy without actually holding office which the Labour Party was to adopt in the early twentieth century. The middle classes were also significant in forming Labour Party ideology. Although by the time of his death in 1883, not one of Karl Marx’s works had been translated into English, the influence of this kind of theoretical study had been felt among the educated classes for years, and transmitted from them to the working classes, giving a theoretical ‘socialist’ edge to the pragmatic demands for improved conditions of work and life which both Liberals and Conservatives expected. H.M. Hyndman’s Social Democratic Federation, as well as the Fabian Society, had an educative role in the institutes and working men’s classes of the late nineteenth century. A further strand was the determination of individuals who believed that working people had a right to proper representation, which would reflect their particular concerns. In some areas, the local people were sufficiently interested in their political rights to help support an MP without adequate private means. Keir Hardie had become an MP in 1892 for the constituency of West Ham in the socialist east of London, supported by his constituents out of their meagre incomes and by his own work as a journalist. The self-educated ex-miner formed the Independent Labour

278 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

Party in 1893 and organised a meeting in Bradford of local Labour parties from various parts of Britain. They agreed to put up candidates across the country, but they had no funds, and the 28 candidates they put forward for the 1895 election were all defeated. The additional funds they needed would have to come from the trade unions, whose resources were considerable. Following the 1899 TUC conference, the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) was formed and at the 1900 general election two members were returned (although one of them defected to the Liberals in 1904). The next stage was to achieve more than a token presence in Parliament, and this was accomplished by the secret pact of 1905, in which some constituencies were contested by only one non-Conservative Party. In the 1905 election, 30 LRC MPs were elected. The Labour Party had become a reality, with support from the Liberals, but above all with funds from the trade union movement. b) The trade union leaders had been, in a sense, frightened into backing the idea of a Labour Party. They had appeared to be entering on a period of influence and authority as the number of workers in unions rocketed and the dockers and the gas workers showed the power of strike action, or merely the threat of it. The leaders of the more traditional craft unions had been a little alarmed by these mass unions and had taken time to recognise them as equals and to admit them to the TUC, but eventually realised the force of numbers. They had not been impressed with suggestions that they should become political and had viewed with some distaste the European syndicalist movements, which planned to use general strikes to revolutionise government and society. It seemed to the British trade unions that they were well off as they were and could improve life for their members, if not for society as a whole, without recourse to electoral politics. They had therefore not responded favourably to the initial approaches of the ILP and Keir Hardie. In 1899 came the case of Lyons vs Wilkins, which declared that even peaceful picketing was illegal and thus meant that strikes would be ineffective. If blackleg workers could go unchallenged into mills and pits, what hope was there for unionised labour? Undesirable laws could only be changed in Parliament and therefore the TUC decided to fund candidates. Part of their £3 million reserves should be used to return Labour members, and a mechanism should be found to support MPs until state payment of MPs could be achieved. The cotton and coal unions voted against this, and it took time for more than a tiny percentage of unions to join the scheme and hand over what became known as the ‘political levy’. As the will of the trade unions wavered, the lawcourts again stepped in to strengthen their resolve. The Taff Vale Railway dispute appeared at first to be like any other strike. The use of blackleg labour, to load the coal at the pit end of the line and to run the trains, meant that the dispute erupted into violence at times and so the union was not surprised to be sued for damages. But the whole union movement, not just the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, was appalled when the Taff Vale Railway Company included in their claim an enormous sum (£23,000) for loss of profit during the course of the strike. From June 1900 to July 1901, the Trade Union movement awaited the decision which, when it came, appeared to spell the end of the movement. The House of Lords found for the company; thus any striking union would be ruined. It is not surprising that this decision converted many unions to the ideas of the LRC and the funds began to flow in.

ESSAYS • 279

The success of the various Labour candidates at the 1905 election and the speedy reversal of undesirable court decisions by legislation confirmed the trade union leaders’ view that they had done the right thing by moving into politics. It did not, however, mean that they abandoned direct action, merely that they never regarded strikes as a way to change more than their own members’ conditions of employment. The many strikes of the pre-war period, even the planned general strike of 1914, had industrial, not political, ends. The friendly support of the Liberal Party may have been, in the light of subsequent events, a mistake from the Liberal point of view, since it led directly to their eclipse in the post-war years. But it ensured that the infant Labour Party adopted a moderate rather than an extreme attitude and programme, and only occasionally in its subsequent history did it even remotely resemble the socialist parties of the continent. Neither it nor the trade union movement has ever shown any signs of revolutionary ambitions.

a) b)

How did trade unionism develop in the last quarter of the nineteenth century? (15 marks) How true is it to say that ‘without the trade unions there would have been no Labour Party’? (15 marks)

The two parts of this question are closely connected. Once you have outlined the developments in trade unionism – the new ‘mass’ unions and their aims, the TUC’s activity in terms of looking for national influence and authority – you will need to consider the obstacles which limited their development. Their links with the Liberal Party should also be mentioned. Thus in part (b) you can consider why the trade unions felt the need to move into direct political participation and the other strands of working-class representation The effectiveness, or lack of it, of groups like the Social Democratic Federation will provide a comparison to enable you to conclude whether a Labour Party could have formed in any other way than through the work of the trade union movement.

5. The end of ‘Splendid Isolation’ a) b)

Define the term ‘Splendid Isolation’. At what stage and for what reasons did Britain abandon the policy of ‘Splendid Isolation’?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) ‘Splendid Isolation’ was a term used with pride by politicians of both parties in the 1880s and 1890s. Where ‘isolation’ was a negative term, denoting an inability to find allies, or an inward looking failure to engage with the other nations of the world, Britain was able to argue that her lack of allies was a ‘splendid’ sign of her own strength. Britain’s empire was enormous and widespread, even before acquiring almost half of Africa. The great ‘white’ colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand were moving towards the status of

280 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

partners rather than dependants; India, since the successful crushing of the 1857 ‘mutiny’, had once again become the ‘jewel in the crown’ and the 1876 Royal Titles Act had declared it to be indeed an empire by giving it an empress. Islands and trading posts around the world provided refuelling and supply stations for British ships. With so much territory, and so many loyal sons to call upon, Britain, the proponents of Splendid Isolation declared, did not need allies. The Royal Navy was not merely the best in the world, but also the largest by far. It was already applying what was to become known as the ‘two power standard’, that it should have as many ships as any two other nations put together. And while the Admiralty tended to be traditional in outlook, they had virtually completed the transition from sail to steam, so that they were less dependent on the weather, although more dependent on coaling as well as revictualling stations. This had been one of the reasons for accepting Cyprus as Britain’s sole gain during the 1878 Balkan Crisis. With such strength at sea, it was easy to assume that allies were unnecessary. Ever since ending the ‘press gang’ as a means of recruitment, joining the Royal Navy had been seen as a respectable and promising career for ordinary boys, since the opportunities for useful training and promotion were substantial. In contrast, joining the army was often considered a mark of failure, except for officers who, until the 1870s, purchased their rank, the glory and the costly life-style going hand in hand. But an island nation had little need of an army, provided that they did not become enmeshed in foreign alliances which might require fighting on others’ behalf. The army in India was large, but there was a large amount of land to patrol, together with civil engineering projects sufficient to keep army engineers trained and busy for decades. Even if Britain had sought close alliances in the 1860s and 1870s, there were few nations in the world with whom it stood on sufficiently friendly terms. Despite their alliance to protect Turkey and defeat Russia, the experience of the Crimean War had not brought Britain and France closer together, and France was seen as a serious rival, for example over the eastern Mediterranean and the crucial Suez Canal leg of the route to India. Germany might have been an ally, given the family links between the royal families and the similarities, not least the distrust of France; but Germany was beginning to appear threatening, in economic and industrial terms, and not, therefore, a useful partner. Russia was an enemy, pure and simple, since the Indian civil service was convinced that it had designs on India and was infiltrating the northern borders, spreading dissent and sedition. Relationships with the USA remained uncertain, and Britain’s informal backing for the secessionist southern states in the Civil War of the 1860s made warm relationships with the victorious union improbable. All in all, Britain seemed to have little choice but isolation, and therefore it was sensible to regard the situation with pride and declare it to be ‘splendid’. b) During the 1880s, however, this position, which had never been absolute, gradually changed. The statesman most closely associated with the move away from isolation is Lord Salisbury. First as foreign secretary and then as prime minister, Salisbury dominated foreign policy in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. He watched the changing balance, both of economic and of military power, and recognised that complete isolation could be dangerous. As countries began to impose protective tariffs, friendly diplomatic relationships would be a bargaining tool for

ESSAYS • 281

preferred status in trade. And as the acquisition of territory in Africa accelerated, it was desirable to have allies to back the reasonable claims of Britain’s explorers and merchants. As other countries began to form agreements and alliances with every appearance of permanence, it became clear that Britain would be unlikely, in a future conflict, to face one enemy, but would face some kind of coalition. Above all, the size of the Empire meant that Britain’s defence resources were stretched and that a little help would not come amiss. While alarmed at the risks inherent in British isolation, however, Salisbury was convinced that it remained the correct policy, provided that it could be interspersed with international agreements when necessary. At first, the threat of France moved him closer to the members of the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. In itself, this appeared an unstable combination, since there were many unresolved territorial issues, the so-called ‘Italia Irredenta’ held by AustriaHungary. But since it was overtly anti-French and included two Mediterranean powers, it was of interest to Britain. After the dispute over Egypt following Arabi Pasha’s revolution, discussions were held with Italy over Mediterranean security. At the same time, France’s close relationship with Russia meant that the eastern Mediterranean might be the target of a greater threat. In December 1887, therefore, agreement was reached with Italy and Austria-Hungary to maintain the situation in Bulgaria and the Straits. It might be suggested that this breached Britain’s isolation, but this was not a treaty in the full sense of the term. When Germany suggested a formal defensive alliance against France, Salisbury refused. A nation with a massive empire but a small army and no conscription could not afford any pact which would require fighting on land. Salisbury also argued, in the face of groups eager to consolidate the ‘family ties’ with Germany, that in a democracy, governments could not make alliances which would bind future governments, as yet unelected, to specific agreements or to courses of action which they might not wish to take. For whatever reason, Britain certainly preferred to make ad hoc agreements over single issues, rather than alliances which might commit her to unspecified action in the future. An example of this was the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Britain was attracted to Japan as a growing maritime power with a common interest in thwarting Russian expansionist moves in the Far East. The 1902 agreement ensured that, should Japan and Russia wage war, Russia would be unable to call upon her ally, France, without Britain coming to Japan’s aid. This fulfilled several British objectives without committing her to any future action. The humiliation of the tsar over Manchuria reduced the Russian threat to India; France was reminded that war against Britain would be too disastrous to contemplate and a useful friendship was made in the Far East, which was to be called upon against German holdings in the area during the First World War. Salisbury recognised, however, that the enmity between Britain and France could be the most destabilising factor in European international affairs. He was aware that Anglo-French hostility made Germany inclined to arrogance. Evidence of this was clear in the German assistance offered to the Boers: from the telegram congratulating Kruger on overcoming the Jameson Raid, to actual financial help during the conflict, and the planning of the Berlin–Baghdad Railway, which clearly signalled Germany’s interest in a part of the world where she had, in British eyes, no right. Thus one of Salisbury’s last policy initiatives was to set in motion the events which led to the signing of the Entente Cordiale. The new king, Edward VII, visited Paris, where he was greeted with considerable enthusiasm, and a moderate set of agreements was drawn up, eventually signed in 1904.

282 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

The matters agreed, spheres of influence in Madagascar and Thailand, fishing rights off Canada and who should control Egypt and Morocco, appeared to bear little relationship to the tensions of mainland Europe. But the support given by Britain to France when the Germans took an undue interest in Morocco, together with the ending of the sort of tensions which had arisen over Fashoda, meant that the Entente gradually hardened into a full alliance whose strength was to be demonstrated in the Great War. From the Entente with France, it was a surprisingly short step to an Entente with Russia. In hindsight, it is possible to say that Salisbury had been right to try to keep to moderate and ad hoc agreements on specific issues, in that it was the tightly knit alliances of Europe which led to the Great War of 1914. On the other hand, if war against Germany was bound to come, over the issues of naval construction and the sanctity of Belgian neutrality if nothing else, then perhaps Britain and its Empire were right to acquire some committed allies.

a) b)

Trace the stages by which Britain acquired allies in Europe in the last decades of the nineteenth century. (30 marks) For what reasons did the Conservatives seek alliances with foreign powers? (60 marks)

Part (a) is straightforward, though you need to seek out some kind of a pattern to the early and limited alliances: the demands of imperial defence, insecurity in Africa and the Mediterranean, and doubts about the intentions of Germany, France and Russia. Part (b) enables you to consider these issues from the Conservative perspective: worries over France and the whole question of north east Africa, as marked by Fashoda, worries over Russia and their supposed incursions into India; concerns about the Mediterranean and Far East leading to alliances with Italy, Austria and Japan. The unsettled relationship with Germany is also worth discussing, since the word ‘seek’ is used in the question.

6. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ Why did Britain play such a leading role in the ‘Scramble for Africa’?

(90 marks)

The ‘Scramble for Africa’ is the term given to the almost total colonisation of the huge continent which, until the 1880s, had been an enigma. Comparing maps of Africa before and after the Scramble reveals how artificially straight many of the boundaries appear, and also shows that for some European nations the Scramble was a matter of greatly expanding lands which they already claimed. By 1914, only two African countries were not ruled by Europeans. One was the Republic of Liberia, established with the assistance of the USA, following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, to provide a home for African Americans who wished to return to their ancient homeland. The capital was called Monroeville in honour of a past American president. If Liberia was comparatively new, Ethiopia was extremely ancient. The emperors of Ethiopia claimed

ESSAYS • 283

direct descent from the liaison between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, as described in the old Testament (1 Kings, Ch. 10). Aside from these two areas, however, the rest of Africa was apportioned between the European countries who expressed an interest and according to rules laid down at a Berlin Conference in 1884–5. Initially called to deal with issues in west Africa, the template established at Berlin was the pattern for all the annexations which followed. A nation intending to take over land in Africa had to demonstrate ‘effective occupation of territory not occupied by any other European power’. They then had to inform the other powers of their intention, before proceeding to annexation. To the modern mind, the possibility of taking over inhabited land without regard to the indigenous people’s wishes seems criminal. But it is a measure of the boundless confidence of the European powers that they were sure, not merely that they had the right to do this, but in some senses that they also had a duty to do so. As far as Britain was concerned, both these views applied. Britain played a leading role in the Scramble for Africa because it was a leading European power and already a major colonial empire. Its reasons were those of all the other annexing countries, but it believed that its right and duty to take territory was even greater than that of its rivals. Among the many reasons offered for British involvement in the scramble, at the time, economic arguments were the most frequently given. In west Africa, for example, the expansion of territory from the tiny holding around Lagos arose from the direct need to safeguard key raw materials, such as the palm oil which Nigeria supplied to the burgeoning soap and lubrication industries, as well as the cocoa which also came from Nigeria. It was also hoped that the continent would provide a market for British manufactured goods, especially as competition in Europe threatened the textile industry. And Africa would provide a home not just for British goods, but for British investment capital. The surplus resulting from Britain’s industrial dominance needed a new home, and so opportunities like the 1869 discovery of diamonds in Griqualand or the discovery of copper in Rhodesia were welcome. For the Conservatives, strategic reasons were equally important. The need to protect the route to India resulted in a ‘domino effect’ of annexation. The Cape coaling stations were the main reason for annexing the Boer republics. The Suez Canal had to be protected, and thus Britain gained control of Egypt, then the Sudan to ensure Egypt’s security, and then Uganda to ensure the Nile waters. The German friendship with the sultan of Zanzibar, on the nearest seacoast to landlocked Uganda, encouraged the British to set up the British East African Company, and in 1890 Salisbury’s government exchanged the small North Sea island of Heligoland for German interests in Zanzibar. Cecil Rhodes had hoped find investors to build a railway from Egypt to the Cape of Good Hope, on British-held land all the way. But it was not simply a matter of protecting British territory. It was also essential to frustrate the ambitions of any rivals. The British government might not want the newly unified Germany to become a serious player in the colonial contest; but it was even more concerned to contain the French, as the Fashoda incident of 1897–9 revealed. The French claimed huge areas of north and west Africa and were hoping to prevent British annexation of the Sudan: a junior officer, Major Marchand, marched with a small force from Brazzaville and raised the French flag at Fashoda on

284 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

the White Nile. Only laborious diplomatic endeavours prevented actual armed combat, with France being given Mali in the west of the Sudan in return for recognising British control of the rest. In contrast, of course, Britain’s involvement in northern Africa at the start of the twentieth century was designed to support France against German claims to their territory. If British governments were committed to annexation, so also were British individuals. Several enormous expanses of territory were taken as a result of private enterprise by men like Cecil Rhodes, who would return from expeditions into the unknown interior to present the Colonial Office with agreements apparently made by native rulers eager to join the family of the British Empire. There was no real mechanism for refusing, or failing to accept, lands taken over in this way, and the lands north of the Boer areas are the proof of Rhodes’ diligence. His notorious ambition, that he would like to annex the stars, was sublimated into claiming territory which would eventually have to be governed and defended at the British taxpayer’s expense. At times, public opinion played a part in the Scramble, though it usually followed rather than led the actions of officials on the spot. Khartoum was an example of the importance of public opinion: the feeling that Gordon had been right and that the Sudan should properly be British had no impact on Gladstone, but the Sudan was indeed British barely a decade after Gordon’s death. British people’s enthusiasm at the outbreak of the Boer War may also be seen as a measure of public approval for the Scramble. And yet most of the land annexed was not, at the time, useful. As we consider the map of Africa, we must remember that petroleum, later to play such a large part in the economy of the Saharan territories and of Nigeria, had not been discovered in those areas. On the whole, the territories were expanses of national pride shaded onto maps, and a liability in terms of defence and administration. But as long as their European rivals were involved, British Governments were bound to participate.

a) b)

For what reasons did European powers seek to acquire territories overseas in this period? (15 marks) Consider the view that the ‘Scramble for Africa’ was seriously damaging to European relationships. (15 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: Evidence that European powers were interested: France, Germany, Belgium and Britain; also Spain and Portugal attempting to hold onto their historic empires. Para 2: Economic reasons: raw materials, e.g. Southern Rhodesia and copper, South Africa and gold; markets for industrial goods; colonial introduction of plantation crops, e.g. in Kenya. Para 3: Defence: coastal bases for the fuelling and supplying of ships; also lands annexed to prevent enemies or potential enemies from taking it, e.g. Sudan. Para 4: Imperial status and the wish to own territory as proof of national greatness: e.g. Belgium, Stanley and the Congo; also reluctance to let go of property once acquired. Para 5: Missionary zeal and the concept of ‘civilising’ the native peoples, the ‘white man’s burden’.

ESSAYS • 285

b) Para 6: Was this a symptom or a cause of European friction: i.e. did existing rivalries get played out, or exacerbated? Note that no government admitted that African policies were relevant to Europe, despite Bismarck’s gesture of pointing to a map of Europe to declare ‘this is my map of Africa’. Para 7: German/French and German/Russian relationships, already poor (examples), were not affected by Africa. Para 8: Relationships between Britain and France, already poor, were worsened by African rivalries: but also the risks of war, e.g. at Fashoda, may have made them behave more carefully. The ‘Entente Cordiale’ had as its basis an attempt to normalise relationships in Africa. Para 9: Other, smaller powers were allowed to proceed at will; slight disputes between Spain and France over north west Africa, but Portuguese holdings left alone; Belgium became and remained a colonial empire despite stories of corruption and slavery in the Congo, perhaps because Britain and France were committed to supporting the Belgian monarchy. Para 10: Italy, too, was encouraged to take a share, perhaps to attempt to strengthen the ‘balance’ in the Mediterranean. Conclusion: Colonial developments in Africa probably did no more than confirm and reinforce existing tensions in Europe; in due course these tensions appeared so dangerous that settlements were made which hardened into alliances. There was very little protest about the methods and ethics of colonialism, even in the growing and strengthening left-wing movements of Europe.

7. The Boer War a) b)

What were the causes of the Boer War? Why did the British government find it so hard to defeat the Boers?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The causes of the Boer War could be traced back almost a hundred years, but in the event, the war was brought about by the policies and inactions of both the British government at home and the men on the spot. The British were to be amazed by the Boers’ determination, and the difficulty of defeating this handful of farmers. The Boers had felt oppressed by Britain since the Napoleonic Wars. The British takeover of the Cape of Good Hope in 1815 had led to the Great Trek of the 1830s when the farmers of Dutch descent moved northwards to get away from British rule, which they regarded as corrupt and immoral. In 1843, Britain annexed Natal to provide a buffer between the Cape and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique), strengthening the Boer conviction that they were trapped and hemmed in by the British. This encirclement was accelerated by the discovery of diamonds in Griqualand (1869), which hastened the area’s annexation to Britain, and from there, Cecil Rhodes continued to expand British territory to the north of the Bechuanaland Protectorate into modern day Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi (then called Rhodesia and Nyasaland). By the time the growing

286 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

power of the Zulu people, under their chief, Cetewayo, led to the annexation of the Boer Republics by Britain, the Boer leaders were determined that the British could not and should not be trusted. They also believed that the British were weak, following the reclamation of Boer independence after the brief 1881 war. But a history of mistrust and hostility need not lead to war. That was brought about by a combination of imperialistic individuals and unsound colonial government. The gold rush into the Rand area in the late 1880s confirmed all the Boer views of the violent and ungodly nature of the British. Their firm containment of the Uitlanders gave Rhodes and his imperialist friends, almost certainly including the colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, the opportunity to attempt the Jameson Raid in December 1895. The raid’s failure infuriated the British, accused across the world of unprovoked aggression. The Boer leader, Kruger, buoyed by a supportive telegram from the kaiser, might have been prepared to reach a compromise, but Sir Alfred Milner, high commissioner in the Cape, was determined to pursue a forward policy and seized the opportunity offered by the murder of a British settler, Tom Edgar. He demanded a five-year qualification for the Uitlander franchise and moved troops closer to the border. The Boers also advanced their troops and the war began in October 1899. While Milner’s influence was pernicious, this war had been coming for years. Ever since the previous annexation and the Boer victory at Majuba Hill in 1881, and the completion of the Pretoria Railway, which had opened the Boer route to the sea courtesy of the Portuguese, British ministers had been anxious about the threat to the Cape route which Boer independence would pose. The British had been considering the military option since 1895. Milner’s attitude was mirrored in the aggressively imperial feelings of colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain. These imperialists used the ‘righteous cause’ of the Uitlander franchise to arouse public opinion with a subtext of Boer ‘impertinence’ and lack of respect for the ‘civilising’ impact of the British. The discovery of gold had had a wide-ranging effect. Not only did it bring the Uitlanders to the Transvaal, but it was also tempting for British investors, always hungry for new targets. The ‘randlords’ were not prepared to accept control from major British companies, who wanted to adopt the pattern of the de Beer company in the diamond mines; on the other hand, the mine owners wanted cheap labour, and so were not particularly attracted by Kruger’s puritan ideals. But when it came to the moment of British military assault along the frontier, they put their support and their financial weight behind the Boer cause. b) One of the greatest shocks during the British imperial years was the near defeat at the hands of the Boers in 1899. Not until the very end of 1900 was victory inevitable, and even then it took many months and extraordinary methods to finish the war. The Boers were difficult to defeat, but the British made mistakes in their handling of both the war and the enemy. It was easy for the British to underestimate the Boers. Their numbers were small and they were not organised into a formal army; rather they fought in groups with leaders appointed by the local farmers themselves. But they were formidable fighters. Their shooting was accurate, as might be expected of people who protected their farmlands from dangerous wildlife; the British were unbeatable at volley fire in organised battles, but the tactic was useless against fast-moving individual

ESSAYS • 287

guerrilla fighters. The Boers knew and cared for the countryside they were fighting in, and they were well armed, thanks to some wealthy Rand businessmen who put their money behind Kruger and used it to purchase ‘state of the art’ Mauser rifles in Germany. Thus the dowdy, brown-clad farmers proved to be an efficient fighting force. The British army was not prepared or trained to deal with such fighters, although they did replace their red coats with a less visible khaki. They were baffled by the huge distances of South Africa and dependent on the railways which the British had built over the previous decades. This made them easy targets for the Boers, who mined and ambushed the troop trains. Only when the British imported sufficient horses to move away from the fixed lines of the rails did they make any gains on the Boers. The Boers had immediately recognised the importance of the railways and besieged the main railway junctions of Kimberley, Mafeking and Ladysmith. It took longer for the British command to learn the moral and move to horses. But supply of all kinds was a problem to the British, fighting a war thousands of miles from home, while the Boers were able to live off the land until the final months of the war. The British needed to recruit in large numbers, and so the war was largely fought with inexperienced volunteer troops, since training took place for only a few weeks before embarkation. One way to have increased the numbers confronting the Boers might have been to arm the native peoples, or to purchase their support with promises of concessions following a British victory, but the British imperial authorities were convinced that this would be disastrous. They were even reluctant to bring troops from India, since it seemed unwise to teach the subject peoples how easy it was to kill white men. On the other side, the Boers were strengthened, not just by telegrams of support from Britain’s European rivals, but also by volunteers from Ireland, the USA, and the Netherlands. The anti-imperialist volunteers foreshadow, to an extent, the anti-fascist international brigades of the Spanish Civil War. In the end, the imperial power was bound to win against a small and essentially poor community. But the long-drawn-out end of the war is a reminder that the Boers were fighting a total war, with every civilian involved in the war effort and every farm and house a refuge for the Boer fighters. The British were forced to use brutal methods to finish the war which they thought they had won when they relieved the besieged railway cities. They divided the veldt, the grassland plains of the Boer republics, into sections with barbed wire and drove the Boers like game. Houses were burned down and cover destroyed, the civilians were ‘concentrated’ into camps, which added a new and terrible word to the vocabulary of international war. The British were aware that their methods were unacceptable, and the final peace settlement compensated the Boers for the damage done to their property. Underestimating the enemy and failing to grasp the difficulties of the terrain meant that the British came close to defeat and certainly suffered international obloquy and humiliation. The fact that the war was brought about by British aggression in the first place may help to explain the slightly shamefaced approach to the start of the war; victory was only achieved with recognition of the Boers’ determination, strength and fighting ability.

288 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

a) b)

Why was South Africa important to Britain? How mistaken were Britain’s policies in relation to the Boers?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

A summary of the different aspects of British interest in South Africa should include the historical, with the early origin of British holdings and the humiliation of Majuba Hill; also the defence importance, given the route to India both before and after construction of the Suez Canal; the economic value of the raw materials and of the market for industrial goods which South Africa offered is also relevant. Part (b) needs to consider the many mistakes made by the British in terms not only of diplomacy and ethical foreign policy, but also in the way the war was conducted, the treatment of civilians and the under-estimation of the Boers’ strength and determination. On the other hand, the fact that many Boers were prepared to support Britain in the Great War will be a measure of the remedial work done after the conclusion of the Boer War.

8. The Conservative defeat of 1905–6 a) b)

What factors helped to bring about the ‘Liberal landslide’ of 1905? To what extent had the Conservatives brought defeat upon themselves?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The results of the December 1905 election were undoubtedly a Liberal landslide in terms of the number of seats won by each party. The Conservatives and their Unionist allies won only 156 seats, while the Liberals won 401. On the other hand, the Conservative percentage share of the vote was only a little down on their 1900 result. The fact that only 114 seats were uncontested is a clue to why the Conservatives did so badly. In earlier elections, many seats had been left uncontested, to the Conservatives’ benefit. This time, in several traditionally Conservative seats, Labour Party members were returned. One significant factor in the Liberal victory was that the LRC’s work was beginning to show results, and the 28 Labour MPs who were elected in 1905 were likely to vote with the Liberals, at least until the difficult issues of trade union rights had been resolved. Similarly, the 83 Irish Nationalists would be inclined to support the Liberals and to boost their majority in the House of Commons. It may also be argued that, after almost two decades of Conservative rule, if we discount the Ireland-obsessed Liberal ministry of 1892–4, the voters in many areas were ready for a change; the Conservative leader, Arthur Balfour, was a relative unknown, after the long years of his uncle’s premiership. At the same time, the Liberals had, in Campbell Bannerman, a leader who was more recognisable to the ordinary voter than the wealthy aristocrat Lord Rosebery. The Conservative Party had been immensely popular at the previous election. The Boer War had appeared to enhance their reputation and support in the country. But the war’s aftermath had been much more tendentious, with a peace settlement in which Britain had virtually accepted the

ESSAYS • 289

accusation of war crimes by becoming the first victorious nation in history to pay reparations to their defeated enemies. As the news emerged of the civilian ‘concentration’ camps and the burning of Boer homesteads and farms, British public opinion began to doubt the war’s conduct. And after the war, further scandals broke. The newspapers discovered the conditions in which Chinese indentured labourers worked and lived in the gold fields, and the headline ‘Chinese Slavery in the Rand’ was an emotive one for a nation which had for decades been proud of its role in combating and ending the African slave trade. The Conservatives might have overcome the adverse publicity following the Boer War had it not been for the vexed issue of tariff reform. Protection was a popular concept in agricultural areas and in some industries facing growing foreign competition; but the customary Conservative supporters in the cotton areas of Lancashire and Cheshire were alarmed at the possibility of retaliatory high tariffs on their products, and the financiers of the City were unenthusiastic at this planned interference with international trade. It was clear that the party and its supporters were split on the issue, and British voters were known to prefer their political parties united and strong. Thus at the December 1905 election, the Liberals won a landslide victory, and the Conservatives did not gain another House of Commons majority until 1922. But could the Conservative defeat have been averted if they had behaved differently? b) The issue of Tariff reform had affected the Conservatives more than 60 years before, and perhaps the party leaders should have foreseen that it would be damaging. They had been pleased to welcome the high profile Joseph Chamberlain when he chose to change parties, and he had expressed, albeit in rather exaggerated form, the imperial ambitions of the Conservative faithful. There were attractive arguments in favour of tariff reform, and the party was inclined to listen to his persuasion. To raise tariffs would have provided revenue for essential public projects, from the expensive grants for education to the naval construction suggested by the Spencer plan. Conservatives prefer not to raise direct taxation, and the imposition of protective tariffs might have avoided this. The Conservatives listened, as always, to the rural landowners who were the backbone of their support but without noticing that the number of rural seats was small and that farm labourers, who were interested in cheap food, would also be voting. So it was the Liberal election campaign, with its posters of large ‘free trade’ loaves and tiny ‘protection’ loaves, which won the argument. There was every risk of retaliatory tariffs being imposed against Britain, and a nation which relied upon exports could not contemplate that. On this topic, the Conservatives had failed to gauge the nation’s mood and had brought defeat upon themselves. Imperialism, or at least misplaced enthusiasm for imperialism, had been one of the arguments for tariff reform, which Chamberlain had hoped could be paired with imperial preference tariffs. It had also caused the backlash following the Boer War. Whatever the enthusiasm for ‘teaching the Boers a lesson’ in 1899, it was incontrovertible that the British had been the aggressors and had conducted the war by ‘methods of barbarism’ as the Liberal leader had stated. As news of the policies followed in South Africa emerged, British public opinion turned against the government. And it was the government which authorised the importation of Chinese indentured workers. The government was therefore held responsible, in the popular press at least, for the brutality of the working conditions and the immorality of the men-only barracks into which the labourers were crammed. It was classic ‘tabloid material’ and the Conservatives might have defused the scandal had they stepped in to regulate conditions. The Liberals clearly felt that the aftermath

290 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

of the Boer War had been significant in their victory, for they worked to achieve a friendly and generous settlement with the Boers without, however, restoring the Boer Republics to separate independence. Other aspects of Conservative policy abroad had failed to attract the popularity which might have been expected in an imperialist nation. The 1900 Boxer expedition to quell an anti-Western rising in China was successful, but appeared to be an extravagant and distant adventure. The alliance with Japan, too, was regarded as a new and slightly risky strategy. Above all, making a friendly agreement with France, after decades of imperial rivalry, seemed a reversal of policies which had worked well in the past. These were reasonable alliances to make and the Liberals were to maintain them, but the Conservatives failed to explain them fully to the electorate and so failed to collect the benefit at the ballot box. At home, the Conservatives had failed to woo the parties which emerged from the 1905 election as allies to the Liberals. The Irish Nationalists watched the Conservatives welcoming the Unionist defectors from the Liberals and found land reform an inadequate substitute for progress towards Home Rule. Salisbury’s belief that the Irish should be ruled with a firm hand and taught that they were forever part of the British Empire was deeply held and supported by most of his party. But co-operation from the smaller number of Ulster representatives would be no compensation when Redmond led his party to support the Liberals. Although the monarchy and the Empire were closely associated, the accession of Edward VII, determined to be different from his mother, might have been an opportunity to take a new line on Ireland. But it would not have been in tune with the ethos of the Conservatives to do so. As for the labour interest, although the Conservatives had produced the useful Workmen’s Compensation Act, they were known to be anti-union and anti-worker. The Taff Vale decision had been the work of the judiciary; but had the Conservatives recognised the injustice of fining workers for loss of profits – after all, employers were not liable for loss of earnings during lockouts – and remedied the decision by legislation, as the Liberals did in 1906, they might have garnered labour gratitude. There were some urban constituencies in Cheshire and Lancashire which had in the past preferred the Conservatives to the Liberals. They did not show this preference in the 1905 election. To suggest that the Conservatives might have effected a different result in the 1905 election is to suggest that they should have recognised the public reaction to many of their policies and altered, or at least publicised, them to attract the voters. But in the early part of the last century, political ‘spinning’ was in its infancy, and the Conservatives stood, and lost, on their record and on the deeply held convictions of many of their leading men.

a) b)

What arguments did the Conservatives put forward at the start of the twentieth century against the policy of free trade? (15 marks) How far do you consider that tariff reform was the main reason for the Conservative defeat of 1905? (15 marks)

SOURCES • 291

The arguments against free trade are clear cut and should be explained briefly: the benefit of protectionism in the face of economic downturn and foreign competition is after all a fairly common theory. The imperialist dimension and the search for sources of revenue other than domestic taxation are the other key points. Part (b) enables you to point up the mismatch between Conservative hopes and the views of the public on tariff reform before you go on to consider all the other reasons for the Conservative defeat; you should end with a judgement which concludes how important each was.

Part 3: Sources 1. The Conservative Party in the late nineteenth century Source A: Lord Salisbury’s view

The object of our party is not, and ought not to be, simply to keep things as they are. In the first place, the enterprise is impossible. In the next place, there is much in our present mode of thought and action which is highly undesirable to conserve. What we require is the administration of public affairs, whether in the executive or the legislative department, in that spirit of the old constitution which held the nation together as a whole, and levelled its united force at objects of national import, instead of splitting it into a bundle of unfriendly and distrustful fragments . . . While scorn is thrown upon the old instincts of patriotism which animated all ranks and divisions of men with common aspirations, the temper which severs class from class is constantly gaining strength. Those who lead the poorer classes of this country are industrially impressing upon them, with more or less plainness of speech, that the function of legislation is to transfer to them something – an indefinite and unlimited something – from the pockets of their more fortunate fellow-countrymen; and it is too much to hope that a doctrine, which teaches them that a disregard of the tenth commandment is the highest duty of citizenship, should not gradually impress itself upon the minds to which it is addressed. On the other hand, by a necessary consequence, the members of the classes who are in any sense or degree holders of property are becoming uneasy at the prospect which lies before them. The uneasiness is greatest among those whose property consists in land, because they have been the most attacked. Source B: Joseph Chamberlain explains tariff reform in a speech at St Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow, October 1903

What are our objects? They are two. In the first place, we all desire the maintenance and increase of the national strength and the prosperity of the United Kingdom . . . Then, in the second place, our object is, or should be, the realisation of the greatest ideal which has ever inspired statesmen in any country or any age – the creation of an empire such as the world has never seen. We have to cement the union of the states beyond the seas; we have to consolidate the British race; we have to meet the clash of competition . . . Our imperial trade is absolutely essential to our prosperity at the present time. If that trade declines, or if it does not increase in proportion to our

292 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

population and to the loss of trade with foreign countries, then we will sink at once into a fifthrate nation. Our fate will be the fate of the empires and kingdoms of the past. Source C: A twentieth-century historian considers the Primrose League

Its main object was to put some life into country and small time Conservatism. Its appeal lay in the fact that it tried to bring together the new middle classes, the rising artisans and the aristocracy in one organisation – each in its appropriate category of membership. The middle classes immensely enjoyed the opportunity to mingle with the aristocracy, and the working classes greatly enjoyed Primrose League fetes. Even the aristocracy got something out of it, because the Primrose League was one of the pioneers in the mobilisation of women for political activities. Teams of ladies would assemble at country houses and bicycle into the villages where the inhabitants were for the most part highly gratified by the attention of their betters. Source D: A cartoon from the Westminster Gazette, 11 October 1900

CHRISTIAN CONSOLATION (to a defeated Liberal): My dear sir, of course you're an 'honourable and patriotic' man; and as for those placards, how could I have supposed that they would have been taken literally? [See Mr Bal/our's speech al Bingley on Tuesday.] MR BALFOUR

SOURCES • 293

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a) b) c) d)

Study source B. According to Joseph Chamberlain, what were the aims which tariff reform would help to achieve? Discuss the effectiveness of sources B and D as examples of political argument. How far do the aims of the Primrose League (source C) address the problems outlined by Lord Salisbury (source A)? Use your own knowledge to discuss how far these sources show the difficulties which were beginning to confront the Conservative Party as the twentieth century began.

(10) (25) (25)

(60)

ANSWERS

a) Although Chamberlain claims two ‘objects’ for tariff reform, in this extract he emphasises the second more than the first. While reform will, he says, increase Britain’s strength and prosperity, the extract dwells on the second, which links tariff reform closely with the creation and maintenance of a great empire. Tariff reform is to hold together all the areas of empire, as well as strengthening the ‘British Race’ and dealing a fatal blow to foreign competition. He expects the policy to increase imperial trade so that it matches both population growth and the inevitable (as he accepts) reduction in trade with foreign countries which protective tariffs will cause. b) Source B is, in many ways, a typical political speech of the period, just as source D is a typical political cartoon. Of the two, source B is the more straightforward. Chamberlain makes use of various oratorical techniques: he begins with a rhetorical question, then begins his answer to it simply, ‘they are two’, before elaborating. He repeats words (‘increase’, and ‘fate’) as well as phrases such as ‘we have to’, and he exaggerates both the benefits of adopting the policy – Britain could become the greatest empire ‘the world has ever seen’ – and the risks of not doing so – or could ‘sink at once into a fifth-rate nation’. The speech is planned in short sections, to allow for burst of applause and shouts of approval. Designed for an interested audience, the speech is a convinced and clear exposition of the supposed wonders of imperial preference. The cartoon, source D, was aimed at an educated and literate audience, since the Westminster Gazette was not a ‘popular’ periodical, and it makes its point more subtly. It is a Liberal complaint at the electoral tactics of the 1900 campaign, which the Conservatives had just won. It assumes a considerable amount of political knowledge in its readers: the stray dog is Joseph Chamberlain, but it seems unlikely that, in the days before television and lavishly illustrated newspapers, many members of the general public would recognise him. (Balfour is identified by the caption.) The cartoon suggests that the Conservative election posters were both misleading and libellous and that the Conservatives were fully aware of this at the time of the election. Their effectiveness, in suggesting that a vote for the Liberals was a vote for traitors, is demonstrated by the tattered and mud-smeared appearance of the Liberal, who has clearly been set upon by the mob, while Mr Balfour is looking very dapper indeed. The cartoon’s impact is a subtle one and requires a high

294 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

level of political and military understanding (although ‘Bobs’, Field Marshal Roberts, was a cult figure); but the point it makes is a valid one, since this kind of campaigning was adopted by the Conservatives in the so-called ‘khaki election’ of 1900. Thus, to its target audience, the cartoon would provide an accurate summary of the Conservatives’ methods. The Liberals were to achieve revenge in their landslide victory of 1905, when some of their posters depicted tiny and expensive ‘tariff reform’ loaves of bread, contrasted with huge, cheap, Liberal ‘free trade’ loaves. c) The Primrose League was originally established to commemorate the life of the earl of Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, and it acted as a fund-raising body, particularly as the reform process reduced the possibilities of election funding by individual candidates or the parties themselves. Gradually, however, it adopted a broader role until, by the early twentieth century, as source C suggests, ‘its main object was to put some life into country and small time Conservatism’. In this role, it was able to address some of the problems outlined by Salisbury. Salisbury recognises that the nation is divided into ‘a bundle of unfriendly and distrustful fragments’ and the Primrose League aimed to offer, according to source C, something for everyone, although they were to remain divided by the existence of different categories of membership. Salisbury regretted that the poorer classes were encouraged to ‘covet’ their neighbours’ property, and source C admits that the attraction of the Primrose League was more likely to be felt by the ‘rising artisans’. It seems improbable that those members of the poorer classes who had listened to the socialist doctrines of the trade unions and others would be ‘highly gratified by the attention of their betters’. On the other hand, the middle classes made anxious by the growing presence of the Labour Party and the emphasis of the Liberals on issues such as Ireland might be attracted by the ‘old instincts of patriotism’ and be glad of the ‘opportunity to mingle with the aristocracy’. It is possible that the threat to property perceived by Salisbury might be alleviated by an opportunity to visit the properties of the wealthy on the occasions of ‘Primrose League fetes’. Certainly membership of the Primrose League grew to include hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. Salisbury does not mention the situation of women, although he implies that something needs to be done to make the party more appropriate in the modern world. But the Primrose League ‘was one of the pioneers in the mobilisation of women for political activities. Teams of ladies would assemble at country houses and bicycle into the villages.’ Conservative women thus acquired the reputation they held until the late twentieth century of being eager to help the party behind the scenes, while only a few of them became active in the parliamentary party. The fund-raising activities of the Primrose League, not mentioned here, were probably more important to the party’s future than any other aspects, and what eventually restored the Conservative Party to dominance in the political arena was the eclipse of the Liberals, leaving the middle classes and ‘rising artisans’ no other refuge than the Conservatives from the threat of the Labour Party and its ‘doctrines’ of ‘transfer’ of wealth as described by Salisbury. d) The Conservatives had not had an easy history in the nineteenth century. Aside from the Disraeli’s ministry, they had had few periods in power until Salisbury’s ministry in the final decade of the century. But, as the twentieth century began, they faced new difficulties. Source A indicates some of these. Salisbury’s rosy view that patriotism ‘animated all ranks and divisions of men’ was contradicted by serious and substantial doubts about the legitimacy of the Boer War and the political capital made from it by the Conservatives (as can be seen in source D). The suppression of the Boxer rebellion seemed to a growing number of people to be a further example of an arrogant imperial policy of dubious morality. Source A also refers, obliquely, to the growing influence

SOURCES • 295

of the Labour movement. The enfranchisement of the working classes had been achieved by the Conservatives in 1867, and it was perhaps inevitable that the aims of working men should conflict with those of the property owning classes which traditionally supported the Conservatives. Salisbury’s way of describing taxation of the wealthy to assist the poor may be picturesque, but his turn of phrase cannot disguise the fact that a majority of electorate would, of course, be in favour of heavier taxation on the minority of great wealth. Source B, on the other hand, reveals a problem which was of the Conservatives’ own making. The need for greater defence spending, combined with the Conservative reluctance to increase taxation, made the concept of imperial preference, and profitable protective tariffs, seem attractive. But after more than a lifetime of free trade, British voters and, indeed, many Conservatives, were unconvinced by Chamberlain’s arguments. It is interesting to note that the man who had divided the Liberals over the issue of Irish Home Rule, and thus given the Conservatives their chance for a significant period of power, was also the man who helped to ensure the 1905 Liberal victory. The issue of Empire was a key part of the tariff reform question, and the Conservatives had committed themselves whole-heartedly to the concept of Empire. They ignored the fact that substantial numbers of voters were uncomfortable with the existence of the Empire, whether because of the added expense of its defence, or on the ethical grounds that the peoples of Empire were being denied the kind of rights which British men and women were striving for. Source C suggests that the balance of support across the country for Conservatism had been altered by the redistribution of seats in the mid-1880s and by the enfranchisement of the shire working classes. The Conservatives needed to realign their effort to attract those sections of society who were not inclined to follow the direction of the Trade Union movement and who were happy to accept the ‘spirit of the old constitution’ which the Primrose League hoped to maintain. But none of these sources makes clear the full extent of the revolution which had occurred in the franchise and the contemporary change which had occurred in the education of the new voters. The educational reforms of the 1870s and 1880s meant that, by the elections of 1900 and 1905, almost all voter households had access to newspapers and to other election material. By relying so heavily on patriotism for their votes, as indicated by source D, the Conservatives ran the risk of losing support as the truth about the Boer War and the subsequent treatment of the Boers became public knowledge. There was another problem for the Conservative Party which is not highlighted by these sources: that of leadership. The fact that the grassroots organisation commemorated Disraeli’s favourite flower is a sign of this problem. Salisbury was a member of one of the greatest political families in British history; but for a prime minister to sit in the House of Lords was perhaps inappropriate once voting was done by a mass electorate. And the question of whether the Conservatives should be led by the old landed families or by representatives of the newer business wealth divided the party until it was definitively decided, with the choice of the businessman Stanley Baldwin, at the end of the First World War. But Salisbury’s leadership, as source A confirms, was also symptomatic of the Conservatives’ uncertainty as to what government should be doing for the mass of the people. And when the mood of the country was in favour of social reform, a party which appeared to want to spend on foreign aggrandisement was unlikely to hold power for long.

296 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d) e)

Explain the reference to ‘the tenth commandment’ (source A, line 14) (3 How accurately does source C sum up the aims of the Primrose League? (5 Compare the tone and purpose of sources A and B. How well do you consider that they achieve their aims? (5 How useful to historians are political cartoons such as source D? (5 Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the view that ‘as the twentieth century began, the Conservative Party was living in the past.’ (12

marks) marks) marks) marks)

marks)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE D a) b)

c)

How does this cartoon help to explain why the 1900 general election was known as the ‘khaki election’? (5) Joseph Chamberlain is depicted as a stray dog, creeping away from the conversation. What part did Joseph Chamberlain play in the history of the Conservative Party? (7) Compare the attitudes of the two political parties to the Boer War. How did the views of the general public change in the months after the cartoon was published? (18)

You may wish to make use of an extract from the secondary source, C, as a stimulus for the kind of question you will meet if you are taking the AQA examinations.

2. The beginnings of the Labour Party Source E: Tom Mann and Ben Tillett explain ‘The “New” Trades Unionism’ in their book of that name, published in 1890

The real difference between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ is that those who belong to the latter, and delight in being distinct from the policy endorsed by the ‘new’, do so because they do not recognise as we do, that it is the work of the trade unionist to stamp out poverty from the land. They do not contend, as we contend, that existing unions should exert themselves to extend organisations where they as yet do not exist. They know the enormous difficulties under which hundreds of thousands labour, and how difficult it is for them to take the initial steps in genuine trades

SOURCES • 297

unionism, and how valuable a little ‘coaching’ would be from those who have had experience in such matters; but they have not done what they might to supply this – we shall. A new enthusiasm is required, a fervent zeal that will result in the sending forth of trade union organisers as missionaries through the length and breadth of the country. Source F: The Labour Election Manifesto of 1905

This election is to decide whether or not Labour is to be fairly represented in Parliament. The House of Commons is supposed to be the people’s House and yet the people are not here. Landlords, employers, lawyers, brewers and financiers are there in force. Why not Labour? The Trade Unions ask the same liberty as capital enjoys. They are refused. The aged poor are neglected. The slums remain; overcrowding continues, whilst the land goes to waste. Shopkeepers and traders are overburdened with rates and taxation, whilst the increasing land values, which should relieve the ratepayers, go to people who have not earned them. Wars are fought to make the rich richer, and underfed school children are still neglected. Source G: Arthur Balfour writing privately in December 1905 about the remarkable rise of the Labour Party

I am horribly ashamed at feeling a kind of illegitimate exhilaration at the catastrophe that has occurred. It has made me more violently and pleasurably interested in politics than I remember having been since the Home Rule Bill. If I read the signs aright, what has occurred has nothing whatever to do with any of the things we have been squabbling over the last few years. C.B. [Campbell-Bannerman] is a mere cork, dancing on a torrent which he cannot control, and what is going on here is the faint echo of the same movement which has produced massacres i n St Petersburg, riots in Vienna and Socialist processions in Berlin. We always catch continental diseases, though we usually take them mildly. Source H: Cartoon from the Westminster Gazette, 10 February 1906

TI[[.01I) FOGY:O h , M r Bull, tsn't rt dr:.adfully revoluttonary to hace all these representattaes oJ'Labour rn the House of Commons? MR BULL: Not a 611 oJ'tl. I t WOULD be f t h q y WEREN'T there.

298 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906 Source I: Statistics about the size of the Labour vote Election

Votes

1900 1906 1910 (Jan) 1910 (Dec) 1918

63,304 329,748 505,657 371,000 2,385,472

MPs elected 2 30 40 42 63

Candidates 15 51 78 56 388

% share of total vote 1.8 5.9 7.6 7.1 22.2

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a)

b)

c)

d) e)

What did Arthur Balfour mean by his comment that ‘we always catch continental diseases, though we usually take them mildly’? (source G) (3 marks) Study source I. What can a historian learn from statistics such as these about British politics in the early decades of the twentieth century? (5 marks) Compare the tone and content of the extract from Tillett and Mann’s book (source E) and the extract from the 1905 Labour Party Manifesto (source F). (5 marks) How far does the cartoon (source H) reflect the response of contemporaries to the Labour Party’s growing success? (5 marks) Using all these sources, and your own knowledge, consider the view that ‘Britain was close to revolution when the First World War broke out.’ (12 marks)

ANSWERS

a) Balfour is referring to Communism, which had been a factor in the revolution in St Petersburg known as the ‘Bloody Sunday’ revolution of 1905, and in other troubles in Europe; his comment may have reference to the Jacobinism of the 1790s, which radically affected the French Revolution, but in Britain was responsible only for a few demonstrations. Similarly, the syndicalism of European trade unions in the last decades of the nineteenth century had been reflected mildly in the growing, but still limited, militancy of British trade unionism. b) Statistics can be useful to clarify generalisations; this table, for example, confirms that the Labour Party gained in strength during the first two decades of its existence, by showing the steady increase in the number of Labour MPs. At the same time, however, such statistics can reveal or confirm underlying contradictions. The nature of the British electoral system is highlighted here: the results of December 1910 show that both the number of votes and the percentage gained by Labour went down, together with the number of candidates standing, and yet the number of

SOURCES • 299

elected Labour men went up. Such statistics can also reveal other aspects of an issue: if the Labour Party’s experience was matched by that of the other parties, the apathy, or voter fatigue of 1910, at the second election within one year, can be demonstrated. Historians should always expect to know the origin of statistics of this kind. They are a convenient way, as in this case, of summing up easily available information from the electoral return records available in many written sources; but for some readers they appear to have a kind of authority absent from the written word, and so need to be examined the more carefully. c) Both these extracts attempt to put across a programme of aims to an audience sufficiently interested to read about politics. Both identify as important the reduction of poverty, but the Labour Party Manifesto is more detailed and more specific about the problems which must be dealt with. The reason for this variation is the difference in aim and projected audience of the two pieces of writing. The Manifesto intends to persuade voters that the problems of poverty can best be dealt with by voting Labour; Tillett and Mann were directing their book at the members of the ‘old’ or craft unions. They are making a very specific request, that the more experienced trade unionists should offer them a little ‘coaching’, and even liken the kind of educational programme they want to a missionary campaign. They are addressing a group of overconfident, smug and selfish trade unionists, and hoping to appeal to their consciences. The Labour Manifesto also refers to trade unionists, but does not differentiate between old and new types of unions, referring in general terms to the hostile decisions of the law courts in recent years. The Labour Manifesto makes direct attacks on the existing House of Commons, claiming that it is not ‘the people’s House’ as it is supposed to be, since ‘the people are not here’. The Manifesto then goes on to link the lack of working-class representation with all the evils of society, and in particular to attack the landowners, blaming them for both the existence of slums and the increase of taxation on the industrious middle classes in the shape of ‘shopkeepers and traders’. Thus both are arguing for change, but the Tillett and Mann book is anxious for workers who have succeed in unionising themselves to assist those too poorly paid to organise properly, while the Labour Manifesto is demanding a change in the system which oppresses all working people, without differentiating between the different layers of working-class society. d) The cartoon, source H, features John Bull, the personification of Britain, in conversation with a cringing and nervous person identified only as ‘Fogy’. Thus the cartoonist immediately demonstrates his lack of sympathy with the Fogy’s views by depicting him in this unsympathetic way. He puts into Fogy’s mouth the anxiety felt by many arising from the substantial election success of Labour in the December 1905 poll, when Labour gained 30 seats and immediately united with the ‘Lib–Lab’ MPs, working men elected to Liberal seats, to form a parliamentary Labour Party of more than 50. The two views expressed in the cartoon probably encompass most British people’s views: some suggesting that it was ‘revolutionary’ to have the working classes represented in Parliament, but others expressing the view that only by harnessing the poorer classes to the parliamentary and democratic process would revolution be avoided. As Britons looked abroad, to the despotic and insecure regimes across Europe, they might well have agreed with John Bull. The Liberal Party had encouraged the Labour achievement by altering the constituency boundaries in 1885, to make single-seat constituencies of entirely working-class areas, and in 1905

300 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

agreeing an electoral pact whereby they did not put up candidates in many of these seats, thus ensuring defeat for the Conservatives and, at the same time, a substantial number of Labour MPs. The cartoon is addressed to doubting Liberals and expresses the view of Asquith (and his son who had arranged the pact) clearly and in the authoritative voice of John Bull. e) These sources offer only a partial view of the turbulent decades before the outbreak of the Great War. They do not refer to the continuing problems in Ireland, nor indeed to the increasingly vociferous campaign for women’s suffrage. They do, however, provide some insight into the growth of a proletarian movement in Britain which, according to some contemporaries, might push Britain into the kind of revolution which was to convulse some parts of Europe in the early twentieth century. Source E suggests that there were new and dangerous groups emerging within the Labour movement. The ‘new’ trade unions seemed threatening, as is clearly implied here, to the older ‘craft’ unions, because it was not their skills that they bargained with, but rather the mere fact of their large numbers and their labour – and they linked their industrial power to demands for reforms of all kinds, not just for improvements in their own conditions. The hostility and suspicion of the older trade unions is a clear indication that there was a fear of revolution. The Labour Manifesto of 1905, source F, echoes some preoccupations of the mass trade unions, demanding schools and food for schoolchildren rather than expensive wars, and threatening the sanctity and security of property.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c) d)

Explain in your own words why Arthur Balfour felt ‘exhilaration’ at ‘the catastrophe that has occurred’ (source G) What are the limitations of cartoons such as source H as evidence of political attitudes in the period? How convincing a political argument is put forward by the Labour Manifesto of 1905 (source F)? Using these sources and your own knowledge, discuss the comment, ‘By 1914, Labour had still not established a solid electoral base.’

(10) (25) (25) (60)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE E a) b)

Explain in your own words and with examples the differences between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ trade unions. (5) What part had strike action played in the formation of the new trade unions in the years leading up to the publication of Mann and Tillett’s book? (7)

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 301

c)

‘The history of the trade union movement is a key factor in understanding the development of the Labour Party’. Show how developments in the two decades following the publication of The New Trades Unionism demonstrate the truth of this statement. (18)

Part 4: Historical skills – the rights and wrongs of the Boer War This exercise has two parts. The first is a research project to place the Boer War into the context of imperial policy in general. In the second part your group may find it helpful to organise a role play to clarify your views about reasons for, and attitudes to, the conflict.

1. Research exercise Share out these aspects among your group and report back as you complete your research: • • • • • • •

• •

map to show the distribution of valuable minerals in South Africa; map to show the different ethnic groups in the southern parts of Africa and their origins; map to show British and other European holdings in southern Africa in the 1890s and their strategic importance; brief history of the Boers, their culture, society and the reasons for their migration northwards in the 1830s; key events of the war, especially the sieges of Mafeking, Ladysmith and Kimberley; conditions and fighting methods during the war, particularly the guerrilla war of 1900 onwards; brief biographies of individuals important before, during and after the Boer War and also in mythologising the war afterwards (Winston Churchill, M.K. Gandhi, Field Marshal Roberts, General Kitchener and Baden-Powell are examples); public attitudes in Britain to the War and its conclusion, including newspaper reports; attitudes of other European nations, particularly Germany.

Large public libraries hold old newspapers; the Internet has websites of all kinds about the Boer War; the individuals in the list above are all the subjects of several biographies.

2. Role play Allocate the following characters (or some of them, making sure you have a balance) among your group. Each person (or sub-group) should research and think about the situation and attitudes of their chosen character, and then hold a discussion – in character, as if the year were 1902 – about whether the Boer War should be a matter of pride for Britain.

302 • THE CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY? 1895–1906

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

British Officer British private soldier Boer man Boer woman South African person of Indian race South African person of African race British Conservative British Liberal British industrialist or businessman British trade unionist who is a ‘Pro-Boer’ British journalist German government representative French person.

References for Chapter 7 1. 2. 3.

Paul Adelman, The Rise of the Labour Party 1880–1945, Longman, London, 1986, Ch. 1 Beatrice Webb, My Apprenticeship, Longman, London, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 204–6 Quoted in Henry Pelling, The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880–1900, OUP, Oxford, 1965, p. 205

Sources A. Quoted in P. Smith (ed.), Lord Salisbury and Politics: A Selection of his Articles in the ‘Quarterly Review’, 1860–1883, CUP, Cambridge, 1972, p. 341 B. Quoted in C.W. Boyd (ed.), Mr Chamberlain’s Speeches, Constable and Co., London, 1914, vol. 2, pp. 140, 164 C. H.J. Hanham, The Reformed Electoral System in Great Britain 1832–1914, Historical Association, London, 1968, p. 21 D. Reproduced in Martin Walker, Daily Sketches, Paladin, London, 1978, p. 31 E. Quoted in Paul Adelman, The Rise of the Labour Party 1880–1945, Longman, London, 1986, p. 105 F. Quoted in Frank Bealey and Henry Pelling, Labour and Politics, 1900–1906, Macmillan, London, 1958, pp. 264–5 G. Quoted in B.E.C. Dugdale, Arthur James Balfour, First Earl of Balfour, Hutchinson, London, 1939, Vol. 1, p. 329 H. Reproduced in Martin Walker, Daily Sketches, Paladin, London, 1978, p. 33

Chapter 8

The Liberal and Coalition Ministries, 1906–19

304 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

This chapter considers one of the most remarkable ministries of the period covered by this book. In the eyes of some historians, this was the greatest Liberal ministry in the party’s history; it was certainly the last. Important social reforms were achieved, and for a time it appeared that Gladstone’s dream would be fulfilled by Asquith, with the achievement of Home Rule for Ireland. But the keynote of these years was political controversy and change: issues of trade union and women’s rights occupied the attention of both public and government. At the same time, British foreign policy took a direction which ensured that any major European war would involve the United Kingdom; and when the war did come the Liberals, at first on their own and then as leaders of a coalition government, were forced to make further hard political decisions, culminating in the decision to continue the coalition as the war ended, rather than risk attempting to rule without Conservative support. This book began with a divided and seriously weakened Conservative Party: this final period saw the Liberal Party suffering internal division and the beginning of a decline which would mean that they never again formed a majority government.

Historical background The political parties after the December 1905 election The reform programme and the 1909 budget The House of Lords The campaign for ‘Votes for Women’ Trade unions and labour unrest British foreign policy and the outbreak of the Great War Changes of government during the Great War Home front developments The end of the war, at home and abroad

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Sources 1. 2.

2.

The dispute with the House of Lords The struggle for women’s suffrage

Changes to the structure of Parliament Votes for women

Historical skills

Essays 1.

The rise of the Labour Party Industrial strife under the Liberals Britain’s foreign policy under the Liberals The outbreak of the Great War The war on the home front Government and the Great War War aims and the peace settlement

1.

Stranded time line or spider chart of the Liberal and Coalition ministries of 1905–18.

THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19 • 305

Chronology 1905 1906 1907 1907 1908 1908 1909 1909 1910 1910 1910 1911 1911 1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 1913 1913 1914 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1918 1918 1918 1919

Liberal landslide in December election Trade Disputes Act Education Direct Grants Act Anglo-Russian Entente Old Age Pensions Act Replacement of Campbell-Bannerman by Asquith as prime minister The ‘People’s’ budget Indian Councils Act Death of King Edward VII and accession of King George V Union of South Africa General elections in January and December National Insurance Act Payment of MPs Act Parliament Act reducing the power of the House of Lords Agadir crisis Anglo-French naval agreement Introduction of Irish Home Rule Bill Cat and Mouse Act Trade Union Act Criminal Justice Administration Act Disestablishment of the Welsh Church Act Outbreak of the Great War Formation of a coalition government Asquith replaced by Lloyd George as prime minister Balfour Declaration New constitution for the Labour Party, committing it to nationalisation Representation of the People Act: votes for some women November: armistice ending the Great War December: ‘Coupon’ election June; signing of the Paris Peace Settlement

306 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Part 1: Historical background The political parties after the December 1905 election The election results were remarkable for each political party. The Conservatives, so recently triumphant in the 1900 ‘khaki’ election, saw their share of the vote shrink until they must have felt that tariff reform had damaged their party as much as free trade had done in the 1840s. The Liberals were buoyant and triumphant, and in a mood to be generous to their junior partner, the Labour Party. And the working men elected to the Commons, whether for the TUC’s Labour Representation Committee, or as Liberal MPs, felt the time had come to formalise their position: on 12 February 1906 the 30 Labour MPs decided to call themselves the Labour Party and to absorb the working men of the Liberal Party, making a party 53 strong. Their influence was to be greater than their numbers, particularly as the Liberal ministry began. In their first year, the Trades Disputes Act restored the trade unions to the financial security they had enjoyed before the Taff Vale dispute: unions could not be held liable for losses incurred during strikes and peaceful picketing was once more possible. On the other hand, the Labour MPs were not united on all issues; for example, there were differences of opinion about women’s suffrage, and they had few specific ideas to put forward themselves. The 1909 Osborne Judgement dealt a terrible blow to the Labour Party. The House of Lords concluded that it was not lawful for a trade union to allocate any part of a member’s subscription for political purposes. Thus, at a stroke, the Labour Party’s funding became illegal. The Liberals were slow to reverse this decision by legislation, though their provision of MPs salaries in 1911 eventually helped matters. Not until 1913 did the Trade Union Act legalise political contributions, provided members had the right to ‘contract out’. It is partly because the Labour Party had had so little effect that the number of Labour MPs declined (from a total of 42 in January 1910) in the second election of 1910 and in subsequent by-elections. There were only 36 Labour MPs when the war began in 1914. On the other hand, there were also positive developments: the number of Labour Party members at local branches doubled between 1906 and 1914; in 1911 the Daily Herald was founded, and trade union affiliations went up, with the powerful miners joining in 1909. The Miners’ Federation controlled nearly 90 parliamentary seats, most, until now, returning Liberals. While the parliamentary Labour Party was too mild to play a major part in the industrial unrest which tore the country in 1911–14, they were bound to benefit from the anger of working men and women.

The reform programme and the 1909 budget The new Liberal government was determined to show its commitment to its supporters and the Labour voters by improving the conditions of ordinary people. During 1906, the Workmen’s Compensation Act – to ensure that workers could claim for injuries sustained at work for which the employer could be held responsible – was passed and two measures put through which would help the poorest children: the School Meals Act and the Medical Inspection (Schools) Act. Both these acts originated from the shocking discoveries of malnutrition and disease at the recruiting offices of the Boer War, but they were to help schoolchildren from poor families for threequarters of the century. In 1908, an Eight Hour Act was passed, although it was still extremely easy to bypass the rules, and a modest Old Age Pension was agreed (20 years after such a

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 307

provision had been made in Germany, and amounting to just 5 shillings (25p) a week, provided all other income sources added up to less than 10 shillings (50p) a week. (For comparison we may note that in 1911, MPs salaries were fixed at £400 per year, or more than £7 per week.) On the other hand, no attempt was made to deal with the growing unemployment problem and the Liberals – not surprisingly – refused to support Ramsay McDonald’s Right to Work Bill, which would have compelled local authorities to provide work for the unemployed. Although the Liberal government went on to produce important social reforms, few of these were in a form that the Labour Party would have chosen: the Trade Boards Act did little more than provide a negotiating mechanism for wages in the ‘sweated’ trades and the Labour Exchanges did not create jobs, though they possibly made finding them more straightforward. Above all, the National Insurance Act, seen by many as the foundation for the modern welfare state, was unpopular with Labour because of its contributory nature and the fact that it was limited to certain trades By 1909, the need to raise taxes, to the value of about £16 million, was paramount to pay for naval construction as well as for the social legislation both in place and planned. The Conservatives had argued that the only way to raise such sums was by tariff reform, introducing protective import duties, but the electorate had decisively rejected this solution in the 1905 election. The Liberals had other plans. Since a majority of the electorate did not pay income tax, the obvious way forward was to ‘band’ taxpayers, that is, introducing graduated tax payments, and to tax unearned income. The 1909 Budget was based on these ideas. It was controversial and took a long time to get through the Commons, though it eventually did. Against the advice of the king, the Lords went against years of tradition and rejected the budget by 350 votes to 75, on the pretext that non-financial matters had been attached to the bill. Lloyd George’s fury was partly synthetic (‘four hundred men chosen at random from among the ranks of the unemployed’) but it was clear that now the power of the Lords would be curtailed. The January 1910 general election resulted in a victory for the groups who would accept the budget (although many Irish Nationalists were doubtful about the land tax, but looked for reward in the shape of Home Rule if they backed the Liberals). The fact that the Conservatives

RICH FARE. Tm:

l-lII'\1'

L1JlYD-O')Jlc';11l1::--:TER:

"FE I':. FT. FO. rA'!'.

[ SM1·:r.!.. TilE HLI)()]1 OF A PLUTOCHAT;

m: m:

ALIVE Oil.

m:

llE 1l1':All,

1 'LL nHDlD 1If~ n())l"[~~ TO ,\lAKE, MY

nn.EAD:'

Figure 8.1 ‘Rich Fare’, cartoon from Punch, 1909, about the budget and the House of Lords

308 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

and Unionists gained 47 per cent of the vote could not alter the Liberals’ narrow Commons majority. The Lords therefore accepted the budget. But by then, the underlying dispute (the power of the House of Lords) had come to the fore. And the question of Irish Home Rule, the reward for Irish Nationalist support in the Commons, would never pass an unreformed House of Lords.

The House of Lords By tradition, the House of Lords had revised and considered legislation passed to them from the House of Commons. In the nineteenth century, most prime ministers sat in the House of Lords where land dominated, very much as it did in the Commons. In the second half of the nineteenth century, however, all that had begun to change. The agricultural depression reduced the incomes, and therefore the power, of the landed classes at the same time that the Commons, with extensions to the franchise, increasingly became the voice of the whole population. Also, of the 200 new peerages created between 1880 and 1914, over 75 per cent went to families who had made their money and acquired their status in business, rather than in land. They were nicknamed the ‘beerage’, as several of them were brewers, or the ‘millocracy’, since their wealth came from textiles. By 1910, only 6 per cent of the gross national product came from agriculture, so the loss of power in the Lords can be linked to their economic status. Nevertheless, their claim to be equal partners in legislation might have remained valid had they not become overtly party political. With the second Home Rule Bill of 1893, rejected by the Lords, the House of Lords became a Unionist and thus a Conservative body. The Conservatives and the Lords had a range of overlapping and sometime contradictory arguments to preserve their power: they claimed that if the voters had not known about a legislative issue at the time of the previous general election, then the Lords should force a general election as a kind of referendum on the subject. On the other hand, if the voters had an opinion which was ‘wrong’, then the Lords should protect them from their own mistakes. If one party had a huge majority in the Commons, they said, the Lords should provide ‘balance’ but unfortunately this ‘balance’, only applied when there was a large Liberal majority, since the Lords tended to rubber stamp any Conservative measures, even when the Conservatives had a large majority, as after the 1900 election. Above all, they claimed, it was their duty to protect the constitution in its current form.

Figure 8.2 Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st earl of Oxford and Asquith (1852–1928), prime minister

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 309

Displaying a sensible caution following the 1905 Liberal landslide, the Lords did not reject the 1906 Trade Union Act, or the 1908 Old Age Pensions Act. They did, however, veto two Education Bills (in 1906 and 1907) which were seen as attacks on the Church of England’s leading role in teaching the young. They voted against a bill to outlaw plural voting, and a licensing bill to control the numbers of public houses in any area. Most determinedly of all, they stopped no fewer than four land registration bills, which would have made it possible to tax wealth held in the form of land. It is not surprising that Lloyd George referred to the Lords as ‘Mr Balfour’s Poodle’. When Asquith became prime minister in 1908, with a radical team including David Lloyd George as chancellor of the exchequer and Winston Churchill as president of the Board of Trade, the days of the Lords’ unbridled backing of the opposition against the Liberals’ wishes and their landslide majority were numbered. Any law to reduce the power of the House of Lords would have to be passed by the Lords themselves. But would the Lords accede to their own death? The Liberals could ask the king to create sufficient new peers to provide a majority; Edward VII would probably have refused to do that, but on 6 May 1910 he died. George V was a conscientious king, anxious about the relationship between himself and his people. The ending of the power of the House of Lords demonstrated that the king was prepared, if necessary, to do as requested by his prime minister, however much it went against his personal feelings. There were moments, however, when he was prepared to influence policies more for his own ends. When the Bolshevik revolution occurred, it is thought that tsarists requested that the Romanov family be rescued and brought to Britain; but, historians surmise, it was the king himself who prohibited this, arguing that the presence of the former absolutist monarch would be detrimental to the British royal family’s position. This can only be surmise, as the relevant papers are held in royal archives and so are not subject to the normal 30 years’ rule. The Parliament Bill was drafted during 1910. The House of Lords was to have no involvement in money bills in the future, and on all other bills they were to have delaying powers only. If a bill passed the Commons and was rejected by the Lords for two sessions (that is, two years) running, then the third time it passed the Commons it would not need to go to the Lords again before receiving the royal assent. The bill also shortened the maximum length of a parliament (the period between general elections) from seven years to five. Thus, more than two years after a general election, a government could not be sure of getting legislation through before the voters again expressed their opinion. The Lords were split over what to do. In a metaphor taken from the land on which their power was based, the ‘Hedgers’ wanted to ‘hedge their bets’, accepting the bill in order to retain at least the two-year veto. The ‘Ditchers’, on the other hand, were determined to ‘fight to the last ditch’ and force the king to make a laughing stock of the constitution by appointing four hundred new peers at once. George V declared that he needed to be sure of the popular will before taking such a step, and a further general election was held in December 1910. The turnout for the second election of the year was, unsurprisingly, low and resulted, as before, in a Liberal government dependent on Irish and Labour support for its majority. The bill passed the Commons in February 1911, but the vote in the Lords was not taken until 10 August. The Lords decided not to force the creation of the new peers. The vote was 131 to 114, with 300 abstentions. The feared influx of backwoodsmen (peers who seldom attended the Lords) to vote down the bill did not occur. The ending of the House of Lords veto, in November 1911, affected the Conservative Party: many controversial bills, including the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and the bill to end plural

310 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

voting, though delayed, were bound to become law. In 1911, the bill for paying MPs from public funds was accepted without delay

The campaign for ‘Votes for Women’ The demand for women’s suffrage had been slowly growing since the enfranchisement of – virtually – all men in 1867 and 1884, but it became an issue when the Liberal government returned in 1906, since it was expected that the Liberal Party would support the claim. The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), founded by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903, began to adopt a militant line which was, in George Dangerfield’s view, ‘neither sensible nor endearing’.1 At first they hoped that some MP would introduce a bill which would provide votes for property-holding women, but as it became clear that the Liberals were not prepared to provide backing for such a bill, the processions and polite questions to politicians turned to heckling and graffiti. In 1908, the retirement of Campbell-Bannerman led the WSPU leadership to hope that the new prime minister, Asquith, would be more amenable to the idea of votes for women. A meeting in Hyde Park attracted 250,000 women, but the government failed to take action, and the demands and demonstrations went on. Not until November 1910, however, did the mood change radically. In February 1910, a bill was introduced into the Commons known as the Conciliation Bill. It would have enfranchised about 1 million women who were householders in their own right or owners of business premises, and it passed its first and second readings without difficulty by July. Its progress was then effectively halted by Asquith, who referred it to a Committee of the Whole House rather than the more rapid mechanism of a ‘Grand Committee’. The summer recess and then the dispute with the House of Lords and resultant general election meant that the measure would not become law. On 18 November, a major demonstration was organised in Parliament Square. The home secretary, Winston Churchill, ordered the police merely to keep the women away from Parliament but, as the day wore on, the police became more harassed and violence and verbal abuse ensued. Some women had their clothing ripped and their breasts squeezed by police officers. By the time the violence ended, 115 women and four men had been arrested. Meanwhile, Mrs Pankhurst waited in vain both that day and the next, when the demonstrations moved to Downing Street, for a meeting with Asquith. The women were now led to believe that there was to be a male franchise bill, which would remove all specific qualifications except for age and mental fitness. The women hoped that an amendment might be added to extend the bill to cover women as well. But a full adult franchise would provide a majority of women in the country of about 1 million, which would simply not be acceptable to the House of Commons. The women realised that Asquith could not possibly enfranchise all adult men and then re-introduce property qualifications for women only. They had been betrayed and deluded, and they were angry. On 21 November, a group of women led by Mrs Pethick Lawrence made their way down Whitehall using hammers to break the windows of the Treasury, War Office and Home Office, as well as other government buildings. A total of 150 women were imprisoned, and no one was surprised when Asquith announced on 14 December that to give votes to women would be a ‘political mistake of a very disastrous kind’. Indignation at this statement moved the militant campaign into another phase: the next day, Emily Wilding Davison was arrested while trying to set fire to a letter box, and arson became the new tool of the militants. Mrs Pankhurst was sentenced to nine months

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 311

in prison, and she led other prisoners into hunger striking. The home secretary, Churchill, who had ordered the censorship of the magazine Votes for Women, now ordered forcible feeding of hunger strikers. Wooden or metal gags were used to keep the women’s jaws open while a rubber tube was pushed down the throat and soup, milk or other liquid food was poured into the stomach. The gags lacerated the mouth and liquid could easily get into the lungs and cause pleurisy. Force had to be used to hold down the women: Mrs Pethick Lawrence was restrained by nine wardresses. The women were progressively released, on the grounds of ill health, and the Home Office declared that anyone could be released if they signed a commitment against militant action. The Labour MP for Bow and Bromley was suspended from the Commons for protesting at this statement, and the militant campaign went on. By the summer of 1912, arson and acid attacks on golf greens and ancestral lawns were being co-ordinated by Christabel Pankhurst, from Paris, while her sister Sylvia became active among the working women of the London’s East End. The Speaker’s statement that any major amendment to the Male Suffrage Bill would cause it to be treated as a new bill intensified the fury of the militants: bombs exploded, one in Westminster Abbey; letters full of chilli pepper were sent to government ministers. The system of release on licence was used to avoid the force feeding which had received such adverse publicity. Mrs Pankhurst, sentenced to three years in prison in February 1913, had only served three weeks by December. The temporary release of prisoners was formalised in April 1913 by passing the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill Health) Act, better known as the ‘Cat and Mouse’ Act, since it authorised the release and then rearrest of prisoners, facilitating spying and invasions of privacy by the police and extending sentences by a ridiculous amount. The vote was passed by 296 votes to 43, including Labour votes, which infuriated Keir Hardie, while Figure 8.3 Crowds at the funeral of Emily Davison, 14 June 1913

312 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

demonstrating just how much the suffragettes had disturbed MPs. And yet no one was prepared to risk the death of a suffragette. In June 1913, however, the WSPU got its martyr when Emily Wilding Davison flung herself under the runners in the Derby at Epsom racecourse. The king’s horse, which was in the race, probably killed her. The funeral in Bloomsbury, London, was the largest procession of suffragettes yet seen. The hunger striking and force feeding went on: Sylvia Pankhurst refused both food and drink and was brutally force fed before being released. And all the time the damage mounted up: over £500,000 worth of damage was done in 1913. Between January and July 1914, 107 buildings were set on fire and Mrs Pankhurst was arrested and released many times. The only progress made was by Mrs Pankhurst’s younger daughter, Sylvia. Her League of East End Women had been expelled from the WSPU, and it may have been in the hope of fostering this split that Asquith agreed to meet her delegation of women from the sweated trades. At this meeting, Asquith promised that women’s suffrage would be addressed in the next session of Parliament. The Great War intervened to enable him to break his promise, and the WSPU, in a flush of patriotic excitement, organised one last march to demand that women be given war work. Only Sylvia Pankhurst, recognising the hardship that the war would bring to working people, campaigned against the war and became a founding member of the Anti-Conscription League, which saw national service as an issue of civil liberty rather than of national need.

Trade unions and labour unrest The last few years before the outbreak of the Great War were marked by more unrest than had been seen in Britain for many years. As well as the militant suffragette campaign, labour relations were at their worst. The reasons for this were not entirely within the government’s control. The influx of gold from South Africa was beginning to accelerate price inflation and wages were falling behind. British industries had not kept up with the modern methods in use in Germany and the USA, and thus British goods were less competitive. At the same time, British investors were happily sending their money abroad, and so becoming richer; and the ostentation of their lifestyles was noticeable through the cheap press in which tales of high life were read avidly by the newly literate poor. The 1901 Taff Vale dispute had shown the way things would go: the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was sued by the employers for damages and loss of profits following a strike about wage levels. The £23,000 award went against the union. This decision radicalised some of the most non-militant groups of workers: the skilled tradesmen of the old craft unions. The return of 29 LRC candidates at the 1906 election demonstrated how anxious the Trade Union Movement and its members were, and the rapid enactment of the Trade Disputes Act, which effectively restored the right to strike, showed the Liberal willingness to placate this new political force. The law courts again played a part in the affairs of Trade Unions, especially those of the ASRS in 1908. W.V. Osborne, a member of the Railway Servants, took his union to court in 1908. He argued that the grant they made to the Labour Party from his (and all members’) regular union membership subscriptions was illegal, since it had been collected for union and not political purposes. In December 1909, the courts found for Osborne. Companies might make donations of their shareholders’ money to political parties, but trade unions could not. Not until 1913 did

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 313

the Trades Union Act restore the right to make political donations, and then only if members were allowed to ‘contract out’, that is, to state that they did not want any of their subscription to be included in the political levy. Before this, however, the Liberal government had tried to solve the problem another way, by introducing legislation to provide for payment of MPs from public funds. The rate of £400 per year was generous, at a time when skilled coal miners were lucky to be paid 5 shillings per day (that is, about £90 per year). The 1911 National Insurance Act also provided health and unemployment pay for contributing workers. Known as the ‘9d for 4d Act’, it provided for workers to contribute 4d per week and the employer to contribute 3d per worker. The government then topped up the fund from general revenue at the rate of 2d per worker. In 1908 they had also attempted to improve wages for the lowest paid, those in ‘sweated’ trades, through the Trade Boards Act, which monitored conditions and wages in these industries. Despite these attempts to placate the trade unions and the Labour Party, the damage had been done. For the first time the ‘aristocrats’ of the skilled craft unions were prepared to make common cause with the mass unions, and between 1910 and 1914 major strikes damaged the British economy and a general strike was even threatened. It is remarkable, for instance, that a majority of British workers were involved in strikes during these years. Between January and April 1910, a mines strike over the issue of moving from two shifts to three brought many mining areas to a standstill and damaged industries dependent directly on coal or on electricity generated from coal. The railways, reliant on coal, were also affected. In July 1910, the whole railway system in north east England was halted by a three-day strike and there were stoppages in the textile mills of Lancashire as well as some factories in Glasgow and Bradford. Employers were determined to demonstrate their strength, and in October 1910 Lancashire owners locked out workers at Fern Mill in Shaw. The mill had been on strike since June over a worker who had been dismissed, and the unions in the area were determined to stand firm. A solution was found only when a different mill agreed to take on the sacked worker, which was thanks to the negotiating ability of Mr George Askwith from the Board of Trade rather than the goodwill of local people. Mr Askwith was again called to deal with the stoppages which started when boilermakers in the Scottish shipping industry went on strike and were locked out in September. But the biggest and most controversial industrial dispute of 1910 centred on the Ely Pit in the South Wales coal field. In November 1910, the chief constable of Glamorgan, alarmed by rumours of riots and violence in the Rhondda Valley, asked the Home Office for military assistance. The home secretary declined to send troops, but London police officers were sent to help maintain order. Thus the myth of soldiers firing on coal miners at Tonypandy was born. The strikes ended not because of government intervention but because the Miners’ Federation decided to stop providing any strike pay to its members. But the miners were not forced back to work until August 1911, and there had certainly been no solution to their problems. In June 1911, industrial trouble moved to the docks. First Southampton and then Goole and Hull had been stopped by strike action. When settlements were reached in these ports, the docks in Manchester went on strike, and very soon 18 different trade unions were involved. The modest pay rises achieved here ensured that the London dockers went into action in August. There was bitterness here at ship owners’ failure to recognise the sailors’ and lightermen’s unions, and the demand was for 8d an hour, with 1 shilling an hour for overtime (which would amount to about £125 per year). On 1 August, the National Transport Workers’ Federation called a strike. The

314 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

employers recognised the potential strength of the concerted action by so many trades and the shortages of all commodities which were threatening to paralyse London and thus they gave in. By 18 August, the workers had their demands met: unions recognised, wages increased to the 8d and 1 shilling they had demanded, and hours shortened, thus enhancing the potential to earn at the overtime rate. In what was almost a side show, women workers in the confectionery and other trades established a National Federation of Women Workers, went on strike and rapidly had their wages raised by as much as 30 per cent (to a maximum of 13 shillings per week). A railway strike in Liverpool in August 1911 rapidly spread to other railway districts; in Llanelly, blackleg workers were used and two men were killed when troops were called in. The dispute was settled by improvements in pay and hours. Finally, in August, the Liverpool dockers, 70,000 strong, went on strike. During 1911 there had been 10,319,600 working days lost in strikes and 961,000 workers involved in stoppages, while membership of trade unions increased by over half a million. But 1912 was going to be worse, with 857 distinct disputes and more than 38 million working days lost. The first problem was the acrimonious lockout of 160,000 weavers in Lancashire, but the most serious trouble was again in the coal mines. Coal production costs had been steadily increased by government regulation, health and safety regulations and the 1901 export tax in coal; and since 60–70 per cent of the price of coal is wages, the mine owners were reluctant to increase Figure 8.4 Colliers at the Clay Cross mine at Chesterfield, Derbyshire, wait at the bottom of the pit as their colleagues are hauled to the surface, 275 metres above, circa 1910

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 315

the standard wage. They were also not prepared to agree a national ‘price list’ as the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) wanted. They offered to look at the rates for ‘abnormal work’, while the MFGB was hoping for minimum rates for men and boys working underground. Mine owners were anxious that pitmen would abuse a minimum wage, lazing about all day and still taking their money home. The prime minister, Asquith, intervened at this stage and demanded safeguards from the MFGB. The unsurprising outcome was that by 1 March 1912 1 million miners were on strike, forcing industries in all other sectors to shut down for want of fuel. The Royal Navy, too, was still reliant upon coal and so the government was compelled to take action. The Coal Mine Act of 29 March 1912 provided for an unspecified national minimum wage and the miners returned to work. In London’s docks, the use of non-unionised labour brought a stoppage in May. Blackleg workers – 19,000 of them – were again brought in and though the strikers were forced back by hunger in August, there was great residual bitterness. One outcome of this was the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1914: the National Union of Railwaymen, the MFGB and the National Transport Workers’ Federation agreed that their members would strike in sympathy in disputes involving any one of the three unions. Such concerted action would have completely paralysed the country and could easily be used for political purposes, as the Tsar of Russia was to discover in the spring of 1917. Between January and July 1914 there were 937 strikes of various kinds, and bitterness grew as dividends and profits rose but employers refused to implement safety regulations or pay minimum wages. Trade union membership had risen to almost 4 million and it seems clear that a general strike was only prevented by the outbreak of war. The Liberal government had reason to be glad that the working people of Britain, like the suffragettes, allowed their patriotism to override their other preoccupations. Although there was some industrial unrest during the Great War, it was mild compared to the turbulence of the pre-war years.

British foreign policy and the outbreak of the Great War The Liberals had inherited both the Conservative mistrust of German intentions and the 1904 Entente Cordiale. An unexpected result of the Japanese victory over Russia was that Britain was no longer as anxious about Russia’s intentions, and in 1907 an Anglo-Russian Entente settled several outstanding imperial issues. Afghanistan was recognised as a British sphere of influence, and China’s authority in Tibet was accepted by the Russians, making the borders of India more secure. Finally, Persia was divided into three zones of influence: one Russian, one British and a neutral zone separating them. Surely, it was hoped, Germany would not threaten Russia and France if they were backed up, however tenuously, by Britain. The kaiser and his ministers, however, noting that both ententes looked to the past not the future, determined to test their strength. As L.C.B. Seaman suggests, The division of Europe into two armed camps after 1907 meant that henceforward no major international problem could be dealt with on its merits. Instead each had to be dealt with primarily as a test: a test of each power’s loyalty to its allies, of each side’s strength to defeat the aims of the other side. So far from international relations being in a state of anarchy it became in the end possible to predict with mathematical accuracy that the behaviour of all of them would be governed rigidly by the pre-determining existence of the two major power-groups.2

316 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19 Figure 8.5 HMS Dreadnought, the Royal Navy battleship that fought in the First World War and introduced a new era of construction

The German naval construction programme and their planned widening of the Kiel Canal spurred the Liberals, never keen to spend on defence, to continue the tentative ship building of the Conservatives. HMS Dreadnought was launched in 1906, and the public demand for ‘eight more’ meant that by 1912 Britain’s naval supremacy and its insistence on the ‘two power standard’ was once more assured. In February 1914, Winston Churchill announced a £51 million naval construction programme. On the other hand, the admiralty’s reluctance to contemplate new-fangled ideas like the submarine was to ensure German supremacy in this area, once war came. In 1911, Germany inadvertently demonstrated how strong the Entente had become. The despatch of the gunboat Panther to Morocco spurred Lloyd George to state publicly (in his Mansion House speech as chancellor of the exchequer) that Britain was not prepared to be ignored in international developments, a threat sufficient to cause the Panther to be recalled. Following this speech, the on-going Anglo-French military discussions were revealed to the Cabinet and in 1913 agreement was reached that the French navy would concentrate on the Mediterranean, entrusting her vulnerable northern coasts to the protection of the British navy. Meanwhile, in 1912, Britain had extended the potential of the Entente by declining to state that she would remain neutral in case of war between Germany and either one of her Entente partners. It has been suggested that if the declaration had been stronger, that is, Britain had committed herself to join France in any war against Germany, the German government might have been more cautious in the summer of 1914. Keith Wilson suggests that Russia was in fact persuaded that Britain would back France, and that this helps to explain the tsar’s precipitate mobilisation in the summer of 1914.3 On the other hand,

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 317

there were still discussions and negotiations with Germany, who in early 1913 agreed an 8:5 ratio for ironclad battleships. And if Germany was prepared to accept British naval superiority, perhaps war could be averted? L.C.B. Seaman has a different view: The Schlieffen Plan assumed the participation of a British force. The German calculation in 1914 was not that England would be neutral but that English military intervention would not matter. What the Germans did not know in 1914 was that the participation of England would contribute materially to the defeat of their plan to beat the French in six weeks, and would lead to the eventual mobilisation of the whole British Empire and the United States against Germany. In short, the only thing the Germans did not know in 1914 was that they were going to lose the war.4

Although Britain was not specifically committed to going to the aid of her allies, by 4 August she was at war. The 1839 Belgian Neutrality Treaty, often seen as the key reason for Britain’s involvement, is not on its own a sufficient explanation: the agreement stated that Britain would only become involved if requested to do so by the Belgian government, and Britain declared war before such a request was forthcoming. Graham D. Goodlad5 puts forward the argument that British public opinion at every level was enthusiastic about war. The British private schools, where the officer class was educated, propounded a military ethos, echoed in the militaristic attitudes of the

Figure 8.6 Map of Europe showing alignments in 1914

Norway North Sea

Sweden

Britain (TE) Denmark

Russia (TE) Germany (TA)

Atlantic Ocean

France (TE) Switz.

Por

tug

al

Italy (TA)

Spain

Austria-Hungary (TA) Serbia Romania MN Bulgaria

Black Sea

Albania Turkey Gibraltar (Br)

Spanish Morocco

Greece Malta (Br)

Algeria (Fr)

Key: TE = Triple Entente TA = Triple Alliance MN = Montenegro

Cyprus (Br)

Mediterranean Sea

Tunisia (Fr)

Libya (It)

Egypt (Br)

318 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

popular press and the popularity of novels about war, espionage and heroism. There was a growing distrust of Germany, despite the fact that Germany was one of the largest customers for British goods, and an anxiety about the possibility that, in a re-run of 1870, Germany might control the whole of France. Having found defeating the Boers so difficult, some Britons felt that they owed it to the national standing to prove their status as a great power, and expecting the war to be a brief war of movement, it was seen as something which would clear the international air. It is the more remarkable when we consider that the flashpoint for war was nothing to do with the Empire but rather with the Balkans, where a war had flared in 1912–13 without any of the major powers becoming involved.

Changes of government during the Great War At the start of the war, Asquith hoped to maintain his Liberal government without major adjustments, but by May 1915 he realised that a coalition was unavoidable. Because the Home Rule Act had been suspended, Bonar Law felt able to take the Conservatives into the coalition and to press for a more determined conduct of the war, including conscription, anathema to Liberals (the modern civil rights pressure group, Liberty, was born as the Anti-Conscription League). The Conservatives supported Lloyd George in the December 1916 coup which removed Asquith and which split the Liberal Party so severely that it never again formed a government.

Home front developments When war began, the Labour Party was divided, with some of its members wishing to adopt a pacifist line as they had during the Boer War. Ramsay MacDonald was replaced by Arthur Henderson, who joined the coalition cabinet and became part of Lloyd George’s small war cabinet. This meant Labour support for conscription, for dilution of labour and for the end of the strike weapon and acceptance of compulsory arbitration. But most Labour voters in the country were content to accept these measures for the duration of the war, and the anti-conscription movement, led by Sylvia Pankhurst, gained little backing among the workers. Labour was also preparing itself for the hugely enlarged electorate promised by the 1918 Representation of the People Act by establishing a national executive and a national framework of organisation. Labour’s comparative weakness before the First World War disappeared during the conflict, as its links with the trade union movement and its planning for the future prepared it to become a mass party. At the same time, the Liberals, split and weakened by the war, found that they no longer had the policies to attract even the most moderate working men, those who had voted for them and not for the Labour Party in constituencies where both stood in 1910. Few in Britain had campaigned against the war, even though it came at a time when Britain faced enormous problems at home. Violence in Ireland, violence in the campaign for women’s suffrage, and the worst industrial troubles ever experienced may have led some people to feel that a war would refocus the nation on its imperial obligations. Only the radical John Burns resigned over the declaration of war. The coalition, with its all-party support, was able to introduce wide measures of control as well as its regulation of labour and imposition of conscription. Rationing was imposed when food supplies were affected by the German U-boat campaign, and the propa-

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • 319

ganda machinery established during the war made use of the latest technology, that of film, as well as more traditional printed media. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act extended the franchise. This was the first reform act not immediately preceded by vocal demand, and yet it was very far-reaching indeed. Age now became the main qualification as all men over 21 were enfranchised and men aged 19 and over who had been on active service in the war. At the same time, property qualification applied to women over 30, who were given the vote if they were householders or the wives of householders. This ensured that men were still in the majority (13 million male to 8 million female voters) and also defused the threatened resumption of the militant suffragette campaign. Some plural voting still remained, although a maximum of two votes, whether university, business or residential, was allowed. The last two-member constituencies were also abolished, and the act removed another potential for corruption when it ordered that returning officers at elections should be paid from public funds rather than by the candidates. We might think that all that remained was to give women the vote on an age qualification alone, which was achieved in 1928; but there were, and continue to be, unresolved issues: prisoners on remand, people who are homeless, people with a history of mental health problems; these are citizens who still to find themselves disenfranchised in the twenty-first century. It is interesting to note that, in the ‘coupon’ election of 1918, a majority of newly enfranchised women voted for coalition candidates, despite the pre-war suffragette loathing of Lloyd George. It was an imperial war. Only in the Union of South Africa was there any suggestion that the Dominions should not come to the aid of the motherland, but that opposition was short-lived, with Smuts himself becoming a member of the war cabinet in 1917 and over 11 per cent of the male white population of South Africa becoming involved in the fighting. Comparative figures are 13.5 per cent of Australians and Canadians and over 19 per cent of New Zealanders. A total of 2.5 million imperial troops were involved, including 1.5 million members of the Indian army. To this imperial commitment we must add the vast amounts of raw materials which came from the Empire. The war’s impact on the Empire was substantial. In India, it encouraged Indian Nationalism. During 1917, the secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, began to work towards what the cabinet called ‘the progressive realisation of responsible government in India’ so that the Government of India Bill was ready for enactment in 1919. It failed to meet the aspirations of the Indian National Congress, however, and the limited dyarchy, or dual control, which it offered was almost lost in the repressive tactics adopted by the British government in India in the post-war years. It was to take another world war to achieve Indian independence. The war also radically altered the situation in the Middle East. During the war British public figures had made two commitments which were mutually exclusive: in 1915, T.E. Lawrence, already known to the popular press as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, had told Sherif Husain of Mecca that Britain would ‘recognise and support the independence of the Arabs’. Two years later, Arthur Balfour, the foreign secretary, agreed with Chaim Weizmann that Britain favoured ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’. Although the Balfour Declaration went on to insist that this homeland should not ‘prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’, it was clear that this area, to be mandated to British protection at the end of the war, would be troublesome in the future.

320 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

The USA finally entered the war in 1917, but as an ‘associated power’ rather than an ally, and to persuade her to enter, Britain was forced to accept, among Wilson’s 14 points, the concept of ‘freedom of the seas’. ‘As so often was the case,’ comments Graham D. Goodlad, ‘Britain’s wartime policy had to be shaped with an eye to the designs of her “friends” as well as those of her enemies.’6 One of Britain’s pre-war ‘friends’, Russia, had collapsed into chaos and Communist revolution before the war could end. Despite the refusal to allow the imperial family to take shelter in Britain, Britain was a leader in the international intervention which attempted to overthrow the Communists before their grip became too firm, but shortage of money soon ended this campaign.

The end of the war, at home and abroad The political position at the end of the war was interesting. Lloyd George determined to keep the coalition together, but this was a mistake: only the Conservatives could benefit in the long term. The 1918 election, with its massively increased electorate of 21 million, was fought by a welter of parties. There had been no election since 1910, despite the fact that under the Parliament Act elections were due every five years. Liberals and Conservatives who supported the coalition were given a ‘coupon’ to prove it to the electorate: 374 Conservative candidates received coupons and 159 Liberals. A few Labour men even declared themselves to be ‘National Labour’ and backed the coalition. Liberals who opposed the coalition stood with Asquith at their head. The main group of Labour candidates also rejected the coalition. Nor could either part of the Liberal Party look for Irish support as their traditional allies, the Irish Nationalists, were swept away by the Sinn Féin candidates who, on winning, refused to sit at Westminster. The final result confirmed that the Conservatives were poised to become once more the main party of government, the moment they chose to abandon the Coalition: Government 335 Coupon Conservatives 133 Lloyd George Liberals 48 Independent Conservatives 26 Irish Unionists

Opposition 28 Asquithite Liberals 57 Labour Party 7 Irish Nationalists 73 Sinn Féin (did not sit)

It is possible to argue that Britain emerged stronger from the war because its two pre-war rivals had been weakened: Russia, its traditional foe in the Empire, and Germany, the leading competitor to Britain’s economic domination. On the other hand, however, Japan had shown that it was a force to be reckoned with in the Far East, and the USA, emerging as the only net gainer from the war, soon overtook all the other world economies. Certainly in strategic terms, during the postwar period, ‘for the first time Britain faced a mismatch between resources and commitments that would ultimately prove to be insoluble.’7 The proof of this lies in the increasing dependence on the newly formed RAF, aeroplanes being so much cheaper to build than ships, and in the adoption of the ten-year rule (that is, policy based on the assumption that there would be no major conflict for a decade). The economic and social difficulties which faced Britain in the years between the wars confirm that its status as a world power had begun to slip irretrievably. When the war began, Britain’s war aims had been limited to restoring Belgium to her previous status and to preventing Germany from dominating Europe in the future. But the atrocity stories

ESSAYS • 321

and the terrible human and economic cost of the war caused the British demands to become more stringent, including future barriers to Germany and the stripping of its colonies, which seemed ominously like imperial looting. Meanwhile, even the American president, Woodrow Wilson, who had hoped for a just peace, was swayed away from the Germans by the behaviour of the German high command over Russia: I am ready to discuss a fair and just and honest peace at any time . . . But the answer when I proposed such a peace came from the German commanders in Russia and I cannot mistake the meaning of the answer. I accept the challenge . . . Germany has once more said that force and force alone shall decide whether justice and peace shall reign in the affairs of men.8

For these reasons, the Settlement of Paris was a punitive one, stripping Germany of its colonial territories, armed forces, territories in Europe to which it had only a dubious claim and heavy reparations. It was mild, however, compared to what Germany had attempted to do to Russia at the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Lloyd George was to face criticism at home for accepting a less than complete humiliation of Germany. Britain and Europe therefore faced the new peaceful world of late 1918 with a legacy of bitterness and mistrust which was to affect the years between the wars in every respect. Liberal power proved to be a thing of the past, and the groups which had disturbed the pre-war peace of Britain emerged stronger and more determined: women continued to campaign for equal voting rights; working men demanded more social reforms and fairer working practices, the Irish moved the struggle on towards complete independence, and foreign policy makers were left nervous in their realisation that armaments and tight alliances had led directly to a devastating war.

Part 2: Essays Some of these essays have a title in two parts. Of these, some have an equal distribution of marks between the two parts; others are based on a heavier weighting for the second part. You will be able to adapt these questions to the pattern of the examination for which you are entered.

1. The dispute with the House of Lords a) b)

What was contentious about the Budget of 1909? Why did the Lords’ reaction to the Budget lead to a constitutional crisis?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The 1909 budget, nicknamed the ‘People’s Budget’, was contentious for both its content and the stormy nature of its introduction and passage. The budget was designed to raise revenue for a range of projects which had been outlined during the 1905 election campaign, but also some that had developed since. This was considered to be, in some senses, unconstitutional. The move towards a more expensive naval building programme, partly in response to ‘popular’ or at least newspaper pressure in the light of the German

322 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

programme, was one cost. Another was the social reform legislation, including the Old Age Pension introduced the previous year, and the planned sickness and unemployment benefits promised in the National Insurance scheme. To provide for these and other proposed elements of legislation, new sources of revenue would have to be explored. Income tax had, over the century since it was first introduced as an emergency measure, become accepted. The ordinary people were unaffected by the tax, since their incomes fell below the initial level for taxation. But the planned higher tax bands were not acceptable to the rich, and the land taxes were recognised for what they were: a direct attack on the oldest and, as had been thought, the most respected wealth in the country. Specifically, the rate of Death Duties, which had been collected since Harcourt’s Act of 1894, was raised; higher rates of income tax were imposed on unearned income, with a super tax rate of 2.5 per cent on incomes over £5,000 per year. Land taxes were also introduced, in the form of a 20 per cent tax on increased values of land when sold, a 10 per cent tax on increases achieved by tenants’ work, and a 0.2 per cent tax on undeveloped land and mineral deposits; the cost of liquor licences was increased, as was stamp duty on land purchases. The attitudes and oratorical style of the chancellor of the exchequer, David Lloyd George, inflamed these contentious issues until it appeared that the budget, far from being an end in itself, was merely an excuse to attack the House of Lords. Lloyd George’s public oratory raised the temperature of the dispute to the point where the Lords would have found it difficult to accept the budget without ‘loss of face’. By the tradition of the British constitution, money bills passed the Lords without amendment, since they were merely the necessary instruments to implement other policy, rather than constituting substantive new ideas. But the Lords considered that this particular money bill introduced entirely new, and not strictly financial, policies, such as the destruction of landed wealth, which had not been put to the electorate in the 1905 election. Thus the Budget was indeed contentious. b) The Lords’ reaction to the budget need not have led to a major constitutional crisis. Once the Commons expressed its anger at the Lords’ decision and the electorate had confirmed that the rejection of the budget was unacceptable, the Lords passed the budget as they had known they would have to. The issue might then have been closed. But the constitutional crisis was the outcome of years of Liberal frustration at the Lords’ behaviour; rejecting the budget had been the final straw. The House of Lords had been well nicknamed ‘Mr Balfour’s Poodle’. It had shown that the Conservative opposition, limited in the Commons and in the country by the landslide Liberal victory and the support offered to the government by the Irish Nationalists and the Labour group, could be extremely effective when it came to halting legislation. The budget was only the latest in a long series of bills delayed or stopped by the House of Lords. And the Liberal response was the more virulent because of the preceding frustrations. The rejection of the budget was greeted with well-rehearsed surprise and outrage, and the announcement that this must be the last time that the House of Lords would stop a bill which had been accepted by the democratically elected representatives of the people. The Lords’ reluctant surrender over the budget made no difference to the Liberal determination to deal with noble obstruction once and for all; the political dispute turned into a constitutional crisis. The Parliament Bill provided for drastic changes in the balance between Commons and Lords, ensuring that any legislation passed in three consecutive sessions by the Commons would be enacted despite the

ESSAYS • 323

Lords’ rejection after the first two. Although the duration of Parliament would be reduced from seven years to five, bills could nevertheless be introduced, with a certainty of becoming law, two years after the mandate of a general election. The House of Lords, from having an absolute veto, would become merely a delaying mechanism. The Lords’ resistance was rendered ineffective by the intervention of the new king. Edward VII had recognised the impropriety of the Lords’ rejection of the budget, once the electorate had shown its approval of the new financial plans in January 1910, but he would not necessarily have been willing to compel the Lords to accept the radical reduction of their own powers. But the new king, George V, was anxious to carry out his duties to his people, provided their wishes could be ascertained in a further general election. The result of the December election, narrow though it was, led to his promise to create up to 400 Peers in order to force through the Parliament Act. Thus the involvement of the most senior and ceremonial element of the constitution ensured that the House of Lords accepted the end of their own absolute powers without forcing the king to make them into a laughing stock. In retrospect, the Lords may have realised that they would have been better advised to accept the budget. Their refusal to do so, crystallising the Liberals’ fury at years of obstruction, ensured that a straightforward dispute, between the representatives of various vested interests, about sources of revenue, became a constitutional crisis.

a) b)

Give an account of the main stages of the dispute with the House of Lords. (30 marks) Who was to blame for the crisis? (60 marks)

The wording of part (a) encourages you to clarify three or four key moments, rather than telling the whole story year by year. If you pinpoint the budget, the consistent Conservative bias of the Lords and their determination to resist all change, you will be able to move smoothly on to part (b), and apportion responsibility: the Liberals’ intransigence? Their sudden conversion to the need for naval rebuilding? The Conservative determination to dominate politics even without an electoral mandate? Although the question uses the word ‘who’, you may feel that circumstances as well as personalities played a part in solving as well as bringing about the crisis: the death of Edward VII, for example.

2. The struggle for women’s suffrage a) b)

Why were politicians of all parties reluctant to give the vote to women? (30 marks) How far do you agree that the militant campaign did ‘more harm than good’ to the cause of women’s suffrage? (60 marks)

a) Before the 1905 general election, women’s suffrage had appeared to be almost a party political matter, with the Conservatives generally against it and others in favour; the years following the

324 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

appointment of the Liberal ministry, however, showed that no party was willing to commit itself to ‘votes for women’. The suffragette campaign was therefore pushed into increasing militancy. The Conservatives were, almost by definition, hostile to changes to the constitution. Taken by surprise at the wide-ranging effect of Disraeli’s 1867 Parliamentary Reform Act, their view was that quite enough people had the vote already. It also seemed to be reasonable that those who made an active contribution to British society – men – should be the ones who shaped that society. While they had been willing to accept the enfranchisement of women of property at a local level, in the 1888 County Councils, no one had seriously expected the Conservatives to take the lead in making it possible for women to vote in national elections. It was more surprising that the newly elected Liberal government took no steps towards a new representation bill. They had appeared, while in opposition, to favour the extension of the franchise, although few Liberal politicians had actually made public statements to that effect. Once in power, however, they did nothing, and the forlorn hope that it was the traditionalist CampbellBannerman who was holding them back evaporated in 1908 when Asquith took over and still nothing was done. The two minority parties which supported the government were not sufficiently concerned to push the suffragette case. The Irish Nationalists were really a one-policy party and viewed all legislation through the prism of whether it would advance the cause of Home Rule. And the Labour Party too, although in favour of enfranchising women, had other serious priorities, particularly at the start of the ministry and again after the shock of the Osborne Judgement. Trade union reform was their focus, and they would not alienate the Liberals until this and a programme of social reform had been achieved. Claims of lack of parliamentary time were backed up by economic, biological and even religious arguments: that only those who contributed to the nation’s wealth should vote; that women were naturally inclined to irrational behaviour, and so should not be entrusted with the ballot. The accusation that women’s hormones can affect their behaviour is one which has continued to be used, although it is at least recognised in the twenty-first century that the same effect, albeit with different hormones, can be observed in men. It was also pointed out that St Paul had ordered women to be ‘subordinate to their husbands’,9 and that women should therefore always vote as their husbands told them to, with fathers or sons filling the role for single women and widows. But underlying all the ‘reasons’ offered was the stark fact that women formed a majority of about 1 million in the population, and the established political parties did not want to risk the volatility of an enormous increase in the electorate, which might actually put women ‘in charge’. b) The militant campaign of the WSPU appeared to confirm the worst prejudices of their opponents. It seemed that the campaigning women had no economically useful work to fill their days and had no compunction when it came to damaging property; they were clearly irrational and hysterical, needing the control of a firm and paternal government to serve as husband or father. In confirming the prejudices of the parliamentary classes, the militant campaign harmed the cause of women’s emancipation. And by their violent behaviour and lack of respect for laws they had not been involved in framing, they may have alienated some men who would otherwise have been sympathetic.

ESSAYS • 325

On the other hand, the years during which women had peacefully campaigned for the vote had had no perceptible outcome. From 1884, when virtually all adult men were enfranchised, it was increasingly recognised that to withhold the vote from all adult women was unjust. If the argument had been that not all women worked for a living, then it would have been equitable to withhold the franchise from non-working men, or to enfranchise on the basis of employment. If some women were sometimes irrational, then the franchise should have been dependent upon a reasoning test for all. The suffragette poster which depicted drunken but voting men, in contrast to unenfranchised female doctors, barristers and home carers, was a graphic illustration of this injustice. The lack of progress over two decades was more than enough to stir women into action, and the WSPU, formed in 1903, looked forward to the election of a Liberal government which would rapidly give them the vote and reward the non-militant campaigns of 20 years. The Liberals’ failure to make good the commitments that were understood to have been given at the time of the election was at least highlighted by the militant campaign. Asquith was the object of particularly virulent loathing, because it had really appeared that he would respond to WSPU demands. If exposing politicians’ failure to fulfil their commitments is perceived as desirable, then the militant campaign achieved this. And, in the face of this betrayal, the suffragettes kept the issue of women’s rights in the public eye, when it could easily have been replaced by the other great issues of domestic and foreign policy. The newspapers were full of stories about violence and vandalism, broken windows, meetings disrupted, even houses burned. The suffragette became the cartoonist’s stock-in-trade. Thus, if publicity was important to the movement, the militant campaign guaranteed it. Some aspects of the struggle produced sympathy and support which had previously been muted. When, after the death of Emily Davison, the government resorted to censorship, banning suffragette meetings and arresting the man who printed The Suffragette magazine, there was a considerable outcry. The great playwright Bernard Shaw wondered publicly whether the new home secretary, McKenna, imagined he was the tsar of Russia, and the Manchester Guardian pointed out that it was against British law to suppress newspapers. In the face of this kind of pressure, a compromise was reached: The Suffragette could be printed as long as it contained nothing which might incite to violence. In 1914, Drew, the printer, was arrested, as the biblical quotation ‘they that walk in darkness shall see a great light’10 was taken to be an incitement to arson. The more radical newspapers also expressed their outrage when a brothel keeper was sentenced to only three months in prison, whereas suffragettes who merely demonstrated were regularly sentenced to six months in prison. The forcible feeding of women prisoners outraged many, and the WSPU posters, referring to the practice as torture, inflamed public concern. But the public had many other concerns which took precedence over what the militant campaign had made to appear to be women’s hysteria. The WSPU had effectively ignored or bypassed the concerns of working-class women, and thus implied that the right to vote should be linked to wealth or formal education. By the anti-democratic suggestion that this was a middle-class movement with middle-class concerns, the militant suffragettes harmed their own cause. It is not surprising that Labour men, with the exception of Keir Hardie, failed to push for women’s suffrage in the House of Commons. The attitude of the WSPU at the 1914 outbreak of war was militant in a different way. The women who had been determined to disrupt and undermine British society were now determined to support and uphold it at all costs. Their backing for the war was as extreme as their earlier

326 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

campaigns, extending to accusations of cowardice levelled at civilian-clothed men of military age, as well as to war work of more useful kinds. But the measure of the campaign’s effectiveness must be the granting of votes to women, achieved, in part by the 1918 Representation of the People Act. The fact that the vote went to older women only may be an indication of the perceived unreliability of young women, or merely an attempt at gradualism, to prevent the instant outnumbering of male by female voters. Whether a reward for patriotic behaviour during the war, or a determination to avoid the disruption and lawlessness of the pre-war years, the provision of votes for women may be seen as a direct result of the pressure from the WSPU. The militant suffragettes may have caused a great deal of outrage, but they probably advanced, more than they retarded, their own cause.

a) b)

When and why did the campaign for women’s suffrage become a militant one? (15 marks) Had the campaign for women’s suffrage achieved anything at all by 1914? (15 marks)

Essay Plan a) Introduction: The militant campaign brought both fame and notoriety to the suffragette movement. Outline of the background to earlier demands for women’s suffrage: other rights which had been attained; local government, property rights and so on. Para 2: Other, peaceful methods used in the 1890s and early twentieth century, private appeals, articles, leaflets, etc and their failure, leading to the militant campaign. Para 3: Failure of the Liberals to fulfil what had appeared to be a commitment at the 1905 election. Para 4: The character and life of the Pankhurst women, as examples of educated but insufficiently employed women and their need to find activities which engaged them (perhaps a reference to the other ‘campaigns’ to which Christabel turned her attention after the First World War to emphasise this). Details of the early militant campaign to finish off this part. b) Para 5: Negative aspects of answer: did not achieve votes for women, partly because there were other difficult issues for Parliament to deal with (Ireland, Trade Unions, etc). Para 6: Positive points: had put women’s suffrage into the forefront of public life, which possibly ensured rapid enfranchisement in 1918. Para 7: The militant campaign had made it appear to be a middle-class movement, and it was they who got the vote in the first instance; but at the same time the irresponsible behaviour of some young women (to be called ‘Flappers’ in the 1920s) may well have ensured that only women over the age of 30 were enfranchised in 1918. Para 8: The status of working women had been enhanced by the work of people like Sylvia Pankhurst, perhaps in contrast to the militant campaign. Conclusion: Thus it had shown that determined campaigning could get an issue into the public eye and hold it there, but at the same time that such campaigning could not bring about a transformation in policy.

ESSAYS • 327

3. The rise of the Labour Party a) b)

Why did the Labour Party come into existence? Was it possible to predict, before the First World War, that the Labour Party would eclipse the Liberals?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) The Labour Party came formally into existence in 1906, when the new Parliament met. The 29 MPs elected under the banner of the Labour Representation Committee of the TUC agreed to unite with the members of the Independent Labour Party and with those ‘working-class’ men who had been elected as Liberal candidates. Urban working men had had the vote for almost 40 years and yet only now did a political party specifically for the workers emerge. For many centuries, the issue of workplace conditions had been seen as a matter between employers and workmen, but over the past 80 years governments had begun to involve themselves in legislation which directly concerned the working classes. As these reforms played an increasing part in the welfare of workers, pressure was necessary to ensure that governments were not diverted from what needed to be done. This was particularly the case following the assault on trade unionism by the law courts, since without trade union sponsorship few working men could hope to sit in Parliament at all. An organised party in Parliament would ensure that the government in power could be pressurised. And the Labour members, if they worked together, could also expect to influence the government over issues which did not directly concern their TUC sponsors: the modest protection offered to workers in the non-unionised ‘sweated’ trades by the Trade Boards Act is a case in point. They never, however, lost sight of their main duty, and their failure to push the cause of women’s suffrage, which would have immensely benefited millions of workers, both union members and those working in sweatshops, was partly due to their wish to placate the Liberals to ensure the continued provision of legislative protection for the Union Movement. Those working men who did enter Parliament needed the support of others from their own class, since the style of the Commons was unfamiliar and alien. The arcane rituals of dress, speech and behaviour were difficult for men whose education had not been based entirely on studying the classics. MPs were frequently men of leisure, deriving their income from property, whether urban tenements or rural tenant farm leases. Those who were industrialists employed managers; there were professionals in the House, mainly lawyers. Only at the beginning of the twenty-first century are reforms in the parliamentary timetable making it difficult both to plead in court and to attend debates. Working men were naturally puzzled by a working day which began in the mid-afternoon. But the paramount issue was state payment for MPs. The Osborne Judgement merely emphasised this need, since there had already been discussions about the propriety of the trade union hierarchy being, in effect, able to impose the candidates of their choice on constituencies. But the Osborne decision made the matter urgent, and the Labour Party recognised their duty to agitate for state payment. The other political parties, perhaps strangely, recognised the need for proper representation for the working men whom they had enfranchised. They knew that education, the popular press and the slow but steady growth in leisure hours together made working men more politically aware than perhaps ever before. The sight of socialism and syndicalism, growing in strength across the

328 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

European continent and, indeed, in the USA, confirmed the need to harness this awareness behind the constitution rather than in opposition to it. Thus a combination of circumstances and deliberate policies made working-class representation both possible and necessary, and enabled the handful of Liberal-sponsored or independent working men who sat in Parliament in the last years of the nineteenth century to form a political party which proved strong enough to endure. b) As the First World War began there was little indication that Labour would ever be more than a junior partner in an anti-Conservative grouping. Labour influence on the Liberal ministries of 1906–15 was limited but significant. The Liberals had, after all, first opened the House of Commons to working men who sat as Liberals, and there was no objection from constituencies which had elected Lib–Lab MPs when their representatives moved to join the infant Labour Party, since they continued to sit on the government benches. Several items of legislation were introduced entirely for the benefit of Labour and their supporters. The damage done to trade unions by the law courts was undone and social reforms such as the 1908 Old Age Pension Act and the plans for National Insurance were designed to please poorer voters. But there were already signs of disagreement: the Labour Party had argued unsuccessfully against the contributory nature of the unemployment and health insurance plans. More radical ideas, like the Right to Work Bill suggested by Ramsay MacDonald, found no place in the legislative programme. Liberal leaders were pleased to have Labour support, but they ignored their wishes whenever it suited them. The picture changed slightly following the 1910 elections, which left the Liberals dependent on the support of the two minor parties. But the Irish Nationalists had kept Liberal governments in power before this moment, and the Labour Party’s small number of votes seemed less important. The only clue to the future which might have been detected was the increasing radicalism of the trade union movement, some of which indicated political as well as industrial concerns among the working classes; such voters would and did notice the Liberals’ failure to introduce a radical programme of social legislation once the House of Lords’ veto was removed. The 1911 Payment of MPs Act benefited the Labour Party more than any other parliamentary group but the Liberal hope (and TUC fear) that it would weaken the ties which bound the Labour Party to the trade union movement was not realised. The Liberals would also have been encouraged by the comparatively low numbers of Labour MPs. A majority of voters might have been expected to produce a majority of working men, once payment for MPs became a certainty; but the status quo was protected by the 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act, which had carefully split and protected suburban and rural areas from the mass constituencies of the town centres. Thus the number of seats guaranteed to return a Labour man was limited by the number of seats in which such a candidate might stand. The Liberal Party was, however, losing support for the wealthy business classes. Traditionally, industrialists and businessmen had voted Liberal, rather than give their support to the party of landed wealth; but as the Liberals were seen to favour the employee against the employer, and as the Conservatives’ focus changed with the decline in agricultural income, a new pattern emerged where, on the whole, the wealthy voted Conservative. By the 1920s, the Conservatives would choose a Birmingham businessman, Stanley Baldwin, as their leader. If the rich – to oversimplify the scenario – voted Conservative and the poor voted Labour, the Liberals would be seriously weakened. This was not clear, of course, in 1914, though early symptoms were perceptible.

ESSAYS • 329

The Liberals’ fate was sealed by events during and immediately after the Great War. The formation of a coalition government, portrayed as a matter of national cohesion, was a weakening factor and by the end of the war had given some Labour men a modest experience of government. But the feud between Asquith and Lloyd George was even more damaging, since it depicted the Liberals as lacking both unity and loyalty. These divisions were demonstrated as the war ended, with Lloyd George leading into the election a coalition government which was almost completely Conservative. Such disastrous splits would not have occurred within the Liberal Party, however, if they had not experienced a growing loss of confidence from the loss of their majority in 1910 onwards. Parties had recovered from splits before, but not from splits in leadership combined with a simultaneous decline in core voters and a failure of inspiration and vision. These symptoms of the Liberals’ post-war eclipse were beginning to be discernible in the years before 1914.

To what extent did the development of the Labour Party have an effect on political life at the start of the twentieth century? (90 marks)

This question’s content overlaps the previous chapter and this one, so it would be sensible to review both before tackling it. It is useful to identify the different strands in the formation of the Labour Party before proceeding to consider the political impact of its formation: the trade union movement, the middle-class socialists, the work of the Independent Labour men and the threats which brought them together. This will enable you to discuss the ways in which the young Labour Party influenced political life: the split it engendered in the Liberal urban vote, the pressure towards trade union and other reforms, and the fear instilled into right-wing groups. But it is also worth evaluating how little impact Labour had, in terms of voting share and influence, for instance over women’s rights.

4. Industrial strife under the Liberals a) b)

Why were labour relations in the years before the outbreak of war so disturbed? How well did the Liberal governments deal with the labour unrest?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) So great was the extent of industrial strife in the decade before the 1914 outbreak of war, that some contemporaries suggested Britain might be on the brink of revolution. Only the surge of patriotism which greeted the declaration of war restored working relationships to a more even and calm mode, although strike action and the threat of it continued throughout the war years. The most important trigger for industrial militancy was the economic downturn in some traditional industries. Coal was a case in point. Although modernisation had improved productivity in many pits, competition from foreign coal was increasing and owners were always seeking to drive down production costs. Combined with working practices that remained dangerous, this was enough to lead to repeated strikes. The 1910 Welsh stoppage arose over just such an issue. The piecework rates in difficult seams (known in the industry as ‘abnormal’ seams) were such that it was almost impossible for miners allocated to these seams to cut enough coal to provide

330 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

themselves with a living wage. Payment was not by the hour but by the amount of coal brought to the surface and, working without electric light in seams so narrow that they had to lie on their sides to use their picks, miners were determined that their work should be rewarded more highly than that of pitmen working in the main seams. At the least they wanted a guaranteed minimum amount of pay at the end of the working day, something which the mine owners claimed would encourage idleness. The strike at the Ely Pit in Wales spread through the area, with owners locking out workers who would not agree to work wherever they were sent without guaranteed minimum pay, and importing blackleg workers. The fear of revolution can be seen here with the appeal for help to the home secretary in London. In other industries, demand from abroad was declining as foreign countries established their own manufacturing processes, ending their long dependence on British goods; and cheap imports reduced even domestic demand, notably in textiles. The serious strikes in the mills are a measure of the insecurity felt by textile workers, and similar effects can be seen among the boilermakers and other skilled crafts in the ship building industry. Trade union strength had been growing for half a century. The great ‘craft unions’ of the midnineteenth century had established themselves as responsible and powerful negotiators, with their skills and long training as the bargaining tools. The mass trade unions of unskilled workers had gradually become accepted, although the TUC continued to protect itself against the membership of workers who were too frequently unemployed. Nevertheless, when strike action was called, maximum disruption could be guaranteed by these huge numbers. The growth of the trade unions made industrial strife more likely. The law courts ensured that trade unions were both angry and alarmed. Their strongest weapon, the ability to strike, was severely threatened by the court decision in the Taff Vale case, which held the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants liable for the railway company’s loss of revenue during the strike. Although the Liberal government reversed the court ruling by legislation, the vulnerability of trade unionism had been clearly revealed. The 1909 Osborne decision again demonstrated union weakness, since it prevented trade unions from doing what any business could do, namely allocate their revenues in the way they thought best. It is not surprising that they reacted by demonstrations of their strength. Strike action may in some senses be said to be contagious – a successful strike in one industry may encourage workers in other industries to attempt the same thing. And it soon became clear that when concerns overlapped it was in the interests of all trade unions to collaborate. The concept of the sympathy strike, or the co-operative strike, was a new one, but it was put into operation on several occasions, culminating in the 1914 signing of the Triple Industrial Alliance. The miners, controlling the material of transport, industry, and electricity and gas production, had recognised their own importance and in alliance with the railwaymen and other transport workers they were formidable indeed. It seems probable that a general strike would have been organised had the war not intervened. b) Strictly speaking, strikes were not the government’s business, since the industries were the property of their owners; nevertheless, the country’s wellbeing was the government’s concern, and thus they did intervene. Government action could have a substantial impact on the industrial scene. If the government reacted strongly, it might trigger an indignant response. If the government appeared to share some of the trade union concerns, as in the coal mine industry, unions

ESSAYS • 331

might take even stronger action, in the hope of extracting concessions. The government attempted to keep the trade unions in order by a variety of tactics. The Liberals not only legislated to reverse law court decisions, but also produced laws which made the trade union movement stronger. The 1913 act confirmed their bargaining power and secured their finances, for the first time in the history of the mass trade unions at least. The Liberal government also attempted to prevent industrial unrest by providing modest social reforms. In troubled industries, the government might attempt to defuse the issue by establishing committees to investigate the most acute problems and by making use of government intermediaries. The thoughtful, practical negotiating skills of the Board of Trade civil servant George Askwith ensured that several conflicts, particularly the trouble in the docks and in the textile industry, were ended with fewer days lost than might have occurred otherwise. His methods of detailed discussion and, where necessary, separate negotiation with each party, were to be adopted when, many years later, an arbitration service was established. Occasionally, however, the government’s actions were inflammatory and damaging. The legend of Tonypandy was to haunt Winston Churchill, the then home secretary, for decades, following the appeal of the local authority for troops to contain the striking miners in South Wales. Churchill recognised that to deploy troops would be to exacerbate the situation, but London police officers were no more welcome than troops would have been and violence did ensue. By 1914, it was increasingly clear that the government could not handle the industrial trouble and that the unions were becoming stronger and more able to organise an efficient militant campaign. The Labour Party in Parliament was undecided as to the position it should take, but their view was that the Liberals had done less than they might have to improve conditions for the poorest and therefore did not deploy what influence they had to calm the industrial scene. The agreement signed between the three most powerful national unions might have been a step towards revolution, or at least total disruption, which the government would have been unable to prevent. The government was rescued from an untenable position by the outbreak of war. Legislation to control workers and prevent strike action might have been introduced under the Defence of the Realm Act, but the union movement’s patriotic commitment proved more effective. The 1914 socalled ‘industrial truce’ enabled practices which the unions had struggled for many years to remove from industry to be reintroduced: dilution of labour, long hours, less safe conditions, were all accepted as part of the war effort. As the war went on, however, the government was forced to take legislative action to ensure that the smooth working of industry continued. The 1915 Munitions Act, for example, made some strikes illegal and was applied to a wider range of industries than merely the munitions works: in 1917, when some railwaymen were intending to strike for a return to the eight-hour day, their strike was ‘proclaimed’ under the Munitions Act, which made it impossible for the union to recognise it as an official strike and to give out strike pay. Thus, compared with the millions of days lost in strikes in the years before the war, there was relatively little disruption during the war; though the provision of national ownership, a long-held ideal of the trade union movement, also helped. The Liberal handling of industrial strife in the pre-war years had shown that democracy could not prevent strikes; but a national crisis could persuade workers, at least for a time, to lay aside their class needs and work for what was perceived to be the national good.

332 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

a) b)

How do you explain the large numbers of strikes in the years immediately preceding the Great War? Were contemporaries right to fear that Britain was on the brink of revolution?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

Look for a number of causes of industrial militancy: working conditions, extended trade union membership, economic circumstances linked with the growth of foreign competition and the beginning of rearmament. At the same time, you need to consider underlying developments such as improved education – by the early twentieth century most men of working age could read – and the development of popular newspapers. The perceived threat of the law courts and the slow legislative response of Parliament to hostile judicial decisions are also relevant; you need examples of successful strikes which encouraged emulation, as well as unsuccessful strikes which increased bitterness and militancy. Part (b) needs to be quantified: was there really a fear of revolution? Then it will be possible to discuss it in the context of the European example, of the Triple Industrial Alliance. A further key point would be the apparently allpervasive nature of violent protest, both over Ireland and over the issue of women’s suffrage. The outbreak of the First World War reveals, however, just how far British working people were, in reality, from revolution.

5. Britain’s foreign policy under the Liberals a) b)

What alliances did Britain form in the early years of the twentieth century? (15 marks) Consider the view that it was these alliances which brought Britain into the Great War. (15 marks)

a) The alliances entered into by the Liberals in the pre-war years had generally been prefigured by their Conservative predecessors. The tentative ‘Entente’ or ‘understanding’ with France was tested and proved over German ambitions in Morocco and the friendly relationship with Japan was also strengthened. The Entente Cordiale reversed over half a century of mistrust and colonial rivalry. Initially the settlement of the Egyptian and Moroccan questions appeared to be little more than empty words; but the Liberal government demonstrated that they were more than that. The 1906 Algeciras Conference showed Germany that Britain was willing to support France’s claim to Morocco; and again in 1908, over the Casablanca Crisis, Britain supported France. The culmination of the whole Morocco question came in 1911 during the Agadir Crisis when, with a German gunboat in Agadir harbour, Lloyd George’s Mansion House speech left Germany in no doubt that the British cabinet was united, and committed to supporting France. As a result, the Panther was withdrawn. This kind of commitment to the French alliance bore fruit the next year when the Anglo-French naval agreement was made. For the first time in its history, the Royal Navy explicitly left some of its work to the navy of a different country: the French were to safeguard the Mediterranean, leaving the Royal Navy to protect the North Sea, Channel and Atlantic shipping lanes.

ESSAYS • 333

An alliance with Russia had seemed even less likely, if possible, than an alliance with France. The long years of anxiety about Russian intentions in India, the Kiplingesque stories of the ‘Great Game’ of Russian spies infiltrating the north west frontier of India, had left their mark, although Lawrence James suggests that the Russians never had either the ability or the serious wish to infiltrate India, but merely used the threat to provoke the British.11 The fear, whether realistic or not, had been reinforced by growing public disapproval of the tsar’s brutal and tyrannical regime. The Conservatives had ensured the humiliation of Russia by Japan with their AngloRussian alliance. The agreement had prevented Russia getting assistance from any ally – on pain of Britain joining the war on Japan’s side – and thus had ensured the Japanese victory. And yet in 1907, the Anglo-Russian Entente confirmed that Britain now recognised Germany as a greater threat than Russia. Attempts to consolidate agreements with the Turkish Sultan were less successful. The decades of supporting the sultan’s corrupt government had not prevented the Turks from signing an agreement with Berlin over railways and trade, and it was clear that Turkey could not be relied upon. Concern about the Mediterranean had thus been raised, and this anxiety was strengthened by ending earlier agreements with Italy and Austria-Hungary. Their Triple Alliance with Germany meant that the Triple Entente faced a powerful army and navy. The Empire remained, as in the days of ‘Splendid Isolation’, Britain’s strength. While attempts to agree ‘imperial preference’ in terms of tariffs had not succeeded, joint discussions about defence with the self-governing dominions had occurred regularly. The presumption of both the British and the Dominion governments was that any war would involve them all as, in the event, it did. b) Britain entered the European war in August 1914 because of a commitment much older than the recently agreed Ententes. The neutrality of Belgium was seen as an essential safeguard for the continental coastline which faced Britain, and in the conflict between France and Germany in 1870, Britain’s only concern had been that both sides should formally confirm their commitment to Belgian neutrality. Why, then, did Germany’s Schlieffen Plan require an attack through Belgium? Their need to defeat France quickly, before turning to confront the Russian ‘steamroller’, had required a two-pronged attack, and they had advanced through Belgium confident that Britain would not react. The German High Command had become convinced that Britain would not go to war for France, and it was Britain’s failure to convince Europe of the seriousness of its treaty commitments which brought about its entry into the war. After all, neither part of Britain’s Triple Entente committed it directly to war regardless of the circumstances. Britain had, however, been concerned at Germany’s behaviour for some years. The successful military campaigns which had marked the initial unification in the 1860s had, it is true, been followed by a period of peace. But the German naval construction programme clearly had the aim of breaching the hallowed British ‘two power standard’ and, in the light of a possible European war, the 1890 exchange of Heligoland for crucial holdings in East Africa began to appear as a mistake. Germany’s new Kiel Canal meant that its ships, new ironclads and experimental submarines could emerge from the Baltic to threaten the sea lanes on which Britain depended. Having allowed Germany to become overconfident, Britain now felt the need to prevent further aggression. Even without its alliances, Britain recognised the approaching need to establish superiority against Germany.

334 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

There was also a surprisingly belligerent mood among significant groups in Britain. German gloating over the Boer War had not been forgotten and its threats in Morocco had been noted. Rumours of German spies in Britain were so prevalent that the Liberal government not only set up the Secret Service Bureau in 1909, but also pushed the – not very Liberal – Official Secrets Act through Parliament in 1911. Popular newspapers offered rewards for information about foreign, specifically German, spies and the German espionage ring became a staple of popular fiction, as James Hampshire has shown.12 As the probability of war grew, there was also the increasing view that a brisk war might provide a boost for the flagging economy, particularly in the ship building and engineering industries. The tentative Ententes with France and Russia had seemed sound and workable and had done much to alleviate decades of hostility. They had also given the British people the confidence that, should war come, the outcome would be swift and victorious. The combination of the British and French navies would be more than a match for Germany and her Triple Alliance partners: AustriaHungary was scarcely a maritime nation. And, if the conjoined army of Germany and Austria-Hungary was large, even so it could not begin to match the huge numbers of Russians. Thus the pre-war alliances swayed the British mood in favour of war, by stimulating confidence. But the main pressure for war came from anxiety about Germany, rather than from any commitment to assist France and Russia.

a) b)

Discuss the extent to which the Triple Entente was a natural alliance for Britain How and with what results did Germany try to destroy the Entente?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

A good beginning would be to point out just how unnatural the Triple Entente appeared to be in the light of earlier British foreign policy, and yet how the growing threat of Germany made it essential to gain the support of France and Russia. Examples of earlier hostility would be useful, as would an elaboration of why Germany had previously been perceived as a natural ally. Part (b) enables you to demonstrate in detail how the actions of Germany, in attempting to prove the weakness and instability of the Entente, had the effect of strengthening it.

6. The outbreak of the Great War a) b)

Why did events in the Balkans lead to war in 1914? Who, in your opinion, was to blame for the outbreak of war?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) The sequence of events which led from the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s death in Sarajevo in June 1914 to the outbreak of a world war is perhaps easier to describe than to explain. Troubles in the Balkans had been regular occurrences on the international scene without leading to more

ESSAYS • 335

than local conflicts. The annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary had been a side-effect of an earlier Balkan dispute, and the Serbs had not recovered from the humiliation and bitterness it caused. The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir, Franz Ferdinand, as he ostentatiously visited Sarajevo, capital of Austrian Bosnia, was the outcome of this bitterness. The assassins of the ‘Black Hand Gang’ fled into Serbia, which naturally refused to extradite them. AustriaHungary’s demand that imperial troops be allowed in to search for them was, equally naturally, rejected and each side appealed to its allies. War in the Balkans had begun. But it was not just another Balkan War. Austria-Hungary’s appeal for German help was matched by the Serbian appeal to Russia. The tsar’s self-image as father of the Slavs and protector of the Orthodox Church ensured that he ordered mobilisation; the Germans, alarmed at the thought of the enormous Russian army, did the same. Fighting around the border between Austria, Serbia and Bosnia might have been expected. Instead, fighting began across Europe. Austria-Hungary attacked northwards into Russian Poland, territory which it had coveted since the eighteenth century. Germany began its long-planned attack on Russia’s key ally, France. Hoping to achieve a rapid victory, the Germans attacked where they were least expected: through Belgium, whose neutrality had been guaranteed by all the powers for almost a century. It was this action which brought Britain into the conflict and initiated a war which crossed oceans and occupied much of the world for over four years. b) Apportioning blame is an exercise in which historians, as well as governments, have indulged since the moment the war began, and it has frequently been coloured more by national perceptions than by unbiased fact. It is possible to say that Serbia might have avoided the war with Austria by handing over Gavrilo Princip and the other members of the assassination plot to justice. But Serbia’s war was a local, Balkan war, oddly similar to the war of 1912–13 which had failed to engaged more than the passing interest of the great powers. Thus the World War can scarcely be laid at the Serbia’s door. AustriaHungary could hardly be expected to disregard the murder of its heir and his wife, although it is clear that calling upon Germany for aid was likely to escalate the conflict. Neither of the two initial combatants, therefore, can be held responsible for the spread of war across Europe. The tsar’s precipitate mobilisation certainly raised the diplomatic temperature. Humiliated by Japan in 1905 and anxious to enhance his standing among his restive people, Nicholas II expected to join with Serbia in a rapid and painless victory. He was confident that France, his ally of many years, would fulfil her treaty obligations and thus catch Germany in the pincer grip of a war on two fronts. Unfortunately, Germany was also convinced that France would hasten to Russia’s assistance. Since 1870, it had been assumed in Berlin that France would seek revenge for the disastrous defeat which had ended the French Second Empire and established the German Second Reich; for almost ten years before Sarajevo, Germany’s detailed war planning had been predicated on France as the main enemy. To avoid a war on two fronts, Schlieffen had planned a victory in the west even swifter than that of 1870, before the German forces would turn to confront Russia. To achieve this swift victory, the main German attack powered through Belgium, while the southern attack, more in the nature of a feint, aimed at the strongly fortified line west of Alsace and Lorraine. Had Germany for a moment suspected that Britain would go to war to protect Belgian neutrality, it seems improbable that they would have adopted the Schlieffen Plan.

336 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Germany was bound, however, to attack France which, simply by reason of its humiliation and loss of territory in 1870, remained a constant threat to Germany. France desired the return of Alsace and Lorraine, and relationships could not be amiable while the provinces were in German hands. German war readiness was planned to reach peak efficiency in the summer of 1914; the French were not due to be at maximum readiness for two more years, so it was in Germany’s interests to go to war, on whatever pretext, at the moment when she did. The issue of Britain’s perceived intentions remains, however, a crucial one. Had Germany been made to believe that Britain would support France and Russia to the hilt, it might seem probable that support for Austria-Hungary would be localised in the Balkan area alone. But France’s commitments to Russia were long-standing and binding, and Russia was bound by its own selfimage to leap to the Serbian defence. During the 1912–13 Balkan wars, the great powers had watched each other as closely as they watched developments in the Balkans, and had therefore not become deeply involved. If Britain had made clear her intentions to join her Entente partners in any war, then the other European powers might have been more circumspect. In an atmosphere of international tension and distrust, with each power stockpiling armaments which had to be used before they became obsolete, it was always possible that one minor crisis could push all of Europe into war. Misunderstandings and undervaluing the commitments of others could make this more rather than less likely. But the only country whose interests were entirely served by a war in the summer of 1914, and whose tactical plan was guaranteed to arouse British fury, was Germany.

a) b)

To what extent was British entry into the First World War inevitable? How can the enthusiasm with which the British public greeted the war be explained?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

The two parts of this question overlap less than is the pattern in many. But an overlap does exist, and if you explain the growing feeling that Germany was becoming dangerous, then you will find it easier to make the transition to part (b). Be sure, in part (a), to consider several aspects: not just the 80-year-old commitment to Belgian neutrality, but the tightening bonds of naval and military obligation with France and the sense of the growing German threat to Britain’s economic and imperial world position. In part (b), British enthusiasm needs to be related to the reasons for the war, but also to British self-confidence and to the conviction that the war would be a short one, on the pattern of other recent European wars; and, as suggested in an article in the Historian12, a growing interest in ‘war’ and ‘spy’ fiction, fuelled by the increased level of literacy.

ESSAYS • 337

7. The war on the home front a) b)

How different was life ‘on the home front’ from life in pre-war Britain? How adequately was the government able to harness the energies of the British people for the war effort?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) From the moment the war began, one striking difference was immediately noticeable: the alarming levels of civil disorder which had swept the country ceased. The suffragettes organised one final demonstration to demand to be given ‘something to do’; the Ulstermen laid aside their campaign, their young men volunteering for the armed forces in larger numbers than in any other part of Great Britain; the Triple Industrial Alliance, so recently formed, shelved plans for a general strike as workers in all trades turned their attention to supporting the war. Thus a calm, unknown in the previous few years, settled over the country. But it was distinctly a country at war. Although recruiting by public appeal had played a part in the Boer War, the 1914 public frenzy had no parallel. Posters, popular music and public figures all colluded to persuade young men into the forces. Over 1 million men had volunteered by December 1914. Thus, quite rapidly, villages and urban districts became quite different as the young men left farms, factories and offices. Some of them were never to return, or to return with their lives forever changed: during the war, the British army and navy (excluding any Dominion or imperial troops) suffered over 616,000 fatal casualties, and of the 1,656,735 men who were wounded, some at least were so badly hurt that they never worked again.13 To a modern eye, accepting such a high casualty rate without strong public protest seems remarkable. It may be explained by the fact that high death rates among working-class men were not uncommon, in mining, heavy industry and agriculture; life was less certain, from infancy onwards, than we have come to expect. The other reason, however, may have been more Figure 8.7 British army recruitment poster, circa 1915, ‘There is still a place in the line for you’

338 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

affected by the war, with long-term consequences: Britain in 1914 was a very deferential society. Many people held the view that those in authority ‘knew best’ and these terrible casualty rates were accepted along with high taxation and controls on many aspects of life. The gradual erosion of this attitude, perceptible during and after the war, was never reversed. The men went to war and women replaced them in almost all fields, bringing about a striking change in everyday life for many. Most outstanding in its long-term effect was the ‘feminisation’ of the role of clerk. Offices had always been the reserve of young men, but from the First World War on, office work became a ‘woman’s job’. The number of women in clerical work, according to census returns, had been 182,782 in 1911; the permanence of the change can be seen in the numbers so employed in 1931 – 1,358,144.14 But women also worked in factories, in transport and on the land and did jobs from which long years of campaigning had rescued them: working in the coal mines for example. Many women going into these jobs had previously worked in the home, either as pieceworkers or in domestic service. Britain’s middle and upper classes found their day-to-day lives radically changed as they learned to manage with fewer servants. As the German U-boat campaign began to take effect, arguments in favour of food rationing began to be heard and, in 1917, rationing of some foodstuffs was imposed. Even before ration cards made their appearance, the physical appearance of British towns changed, as governmentsponsored posters exhorted the good citizen not to waste bread and other scarce materials and to produce more food. The newest medium, that of film, was recruited to the cause, with short films being made such as Father and Lather – about saving soap – and A New Version – in which Maud is urged to ‘come into the garden’ in order to grow her own food.15 Film gained a powerful hold on the public, with kinematograph vans touring to show films such as The Battle of the Somme in towns and villages across the country. Life was changed beyond all recognition from the pre-war days. Many people were not merely better informed than they had ever been, they were also better paid. And while their personal lives might be damaged by the absence of the young men, they were experiencing a higher level of government interest in them, and government intervention in their affairs, than ever before in British history. b) The government was at first reluctant to take greater powers for itself merely because there was a war, but in many fields action was forced upon them by circumstances. Despite the huge number of volunteers into the forces in the early part of the war, the casualty rates meant that some form of compulsion would be necessary. Appeals for men to register ready to come forward were less than effective, and from January 1916, amid anxiety about a ‘failure of national will’, conscription was enforced. This had two notable effects. The public attitude to the army changed. Previously viewed as a refuge for wastrels and criminals, the army had acquired an aura of heroism in the patriotic fervour of 1914; but its men had still chosen to go. From 1916 onwards, a ‘citizen’s army’ came into existence; men who had not chosen to fight had to be treated differently from volunteers, and public tolerance of death and mutilation was bound to be less when the victims were the conscripted sons, husbands and fathers of the nation. The other effect was to create, for the first time in British history, a movement of conscientious objection. Only when men are compelled to fight do those who object face the need to refuse. The government had to find a way to distinguish between deeply held conviction and deeply felt fear. The technique adopted was to

ESSAYS • 339

establish tribunals to examine every man. The total number of objectors was small: throughout the war a total of 16,000 men went before exemption tribunals (compared to a total of over 6 million men in the British armed forces). But the treatment dealt out to them by the government’s agencies was so harsh and abusive that we may reasonably assume that those who went before the tribunals were only a small fraction of those who opposed the war. The tribunals appeared to label every refusal as cowardice, unless it came with recognisable ‘tag’ such as the known pacifism of the Society of Friends (Quakers). Socialists who were against the war for ideological reasons were seldom exempted. ‘Absolutists’, who refused to accept even the jurisdiction of the tribunals, were the most harshly treated, with 650 still in prison in May 1919, 73 dead, whether in prison or in military custody, and 31 in mental institutions.16 Industry needed to serve the war effort and a surprisingly high level of government regulation was accepted by workers and industrialists alike. Aside from the ‘catch all’ Defence of the Realm Act, which could be used to control anything from the opening hours of pubs to who was allowed to stroll along the sea front, other measures were taken. During 1915, the trade union movement was persuaded to accept a formal agreement for the dilution of labour, that is, that work previously reserved for skilled men should be done by unskilled men or even women. The Shells and Fuses agreement of the same year authorised the installation of automatic machinery in workshops which had previously produced by hand. Where necessary, and where the trade unions were reluctant to provide the necessary guarantees, compulsion might be used. The 1915 Munitions Act made it illegal to hinder the production and supply of armaments and was used to prevent a rail strike in 1917. The railways and the coal mines were brought under a temporary public control to ensure the smooth flow of fuel and goods essential to the war effort. Aircraft production was greatly expanded under a scheme of government subsidies to private firms. The threat of the Uboat led to the 1917 Corn Production Act which, by fixing minimum prices for cereal crops, ensured that more wheat and barley was planted. The increasing amount of government, and legislative, interference may indicate that the people were less willing to commit themselves totally to the war as time went on. So anxious was the government by 1917 that morale was sagging and that the longing for the war to end was smothering the nation’s fighting spirit, that they commissioned what was known as The National Film: lavishly made, it aimed to contrast the life of Britain with what might happen if the Germans were not defeated. It was regarded as so important that, when fire destroyed the footage at the cutting stage, the whole production was re-commenced. Its national dissemination – tragically for its producers – was prevented by the signing of the armistice. But this kind of expenditure demonstrates both the government’s determination to harness all the energies of the people and the fear that they were losing the contest with war weariness. The government’s initial approach to ‘harnessing the energies’ of the people had been tentative and almost apologetic, and it is possible that the war effort had suffered because of this hesitancy. As the war went on, higher levels of effort were made to ensure the full participation at all levels of society. When, two decades later, Britain again faced a world war, the government’s efficiency and forward thinking in the handling of such matters as military conscription, rationing of both food and clothing, and calling up women into war work suggests that the lessons of the amateurish approach of the Great War had been learned.

340 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

How did the government respond to the opposition of groups which were against British participation in the Great War? (90 marks)

Essay Plan Introduction: An outline of the general enthusiasm for the war to put the opposition into context: the willingness of the WSPU and the TUC to give up their promising militant campaigns for reasons of patriotism. Para 2: Opposition from pacifist groups, both religious and non-religious, and their reasoning. Reference to the anti-war groups of earlier wars, the ‘Pro-Boers’ and ‘Little Englanders’. Para 3: The opposition of socialist and working-class groups, and their argument that the workers suffered while the rich benefited. Extension of this once conscription became a reality, with the perception that the rich found it easier to avoid than the poor. Para 4: The groups whose attitude was that there were more important conflicts and issues to be dealt with at home. Para 5: The treatment of conscientious objectors: details of the tribunal system and the treatment of resisters in prison. Para 6: The use of propaganda and other morale boosting methods to encourage commitment to the war. Para 7: Negotiation rather than coercion used with the TUC to ensure that workers accepted dilution and other policies detrimental to themselves for ‘the good of the war’. Generous treatment of owners of requisitioned industries for the same reason. Para 8: Ridicule and ill treatment of people ‘not in step’: inadequate policing of anticonscription meetings to enable patriotic disruption to go unchecked, treatment of Sylvia Pankhurst by government-backing newspapers. Conclusion: strong sense of patriotism and attitudes of deference to those in authority, which meant that opposition to the war was in fact muted and contained as much by public opinion as by government action. But residue of doubt survived for later wars (workers’ chant of the Second World War: ‘the last one was a Bosses’ War’).

8. Government and the Great War a) b)

What events led to the formation of a coalition ministry in Britain in 1915? How successful was Lloyd George as a war prime minister?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

a) When the war began in 1914, Asquith saw no reason to alter the political make-up of his government, although his own Liberal Party could hardly be said to have a mandate from the people for radical action. The December 1910 election had left the Liberals dependent on the Labour Party and the Irish Nationalists. It might have been supposed that Asquith would look for active assistance from the Conservatives and, indeed, many of them offered it. Lord Curzon was one: ‘When

ESSAYS • 341

the war broke out, I offered myself to Asquith for non-political work in any capacity. But none has been offered to me,’ he wrote on 22 August 1914.17 The Labour Party, meanwhile, continued to support the Liberal government, despite the fact that some of its leading members were inclined to pacifism and hostile to the concept of war. They agreed a political truce whereby any parliamentary seats falling vacant would not be contested until the last year of the war. It is also worth noting that the change of ministry in May 1915 meant that a general election (due in January 1916 under the terms of the 1911 Parliament Act) could be avoided, and the actual support for the Liberal party remained untested. Coalition governments had never played a part in British politics; since the political parties had acquired strength and cohesion, the government had always been by one party or the other, supported perhaps by newly dissident splinter groups such as the Peelites of the 1840s or the Unionists of the 1880s. This fact makes the formation of a coalition in May 1915 the more surprising. Its main cause was the expression of a lack of confidence in Asquith’s government, but historians differ as to the precise trigger. As early as 1922, Beaverbrook linked Asquith’s change of direction with the Dardanelles Campaign and with the resignation of Admiral Fisher, who refused to countenance the use of the Royal Navy in the way that the Gallipoli assault required. But senior officers have been replaced before, and since, without unsettling governments. The other issue reducing confidence in the government was the ‘munitions crisis’ and the publication of Colonel Repington’s despatch on the shell shortage in The Times of 14 May 1915. Some historians, including Stephen Koss,18 prefer a more conspiratorial interpretation of the Repington despatch. The maverick Winston Churchill had visited France the week before and had met Colonel Repington. He was known to feel that the conduct of the war was not sufficiently determined, and Koss suggests that he persuaded Repington to ‘go public’. The accusation that men were dying because of supply failure was a powerful one, and the coalition was formed on 19 May. The coalition was not a stable one. Asquith may have been contemplating it for some weeks before it became a reality; but once it was in place, Asquith found it an unstable organism, with issues about recruitment and munitions supply no more settled than they had been before. Rumours of rebellion within the Liberal Party had been current even before the Coalition’s formation; in the event, however, Asquith remained prime minister for more than 18 months before he was replaced by Lloyd George. Many people, however, felt that he should have gone long before. Sir Henry Wilson, Officer Commanding IV Corps in France, wrote in his diary as early as 30 January 1916: From my visit home, it is clear to me that so long as we keep Asquith as PM we shall never go to war. And this is a most dangerous thing. He will do nothing himself and will not allow anyone else to do anything. 19

On 7 December 1916, Asquith resigned and Lloyd George became prime minister. b) Lloyd George has always been regarded as a very successful war leader. Despite the fact that he had split his party and had hastened Asquith’s resignation by less than honourably encouraging rumours of Asquith’s drink problems, his conduct of the war has always been praised. At the end of the war, his coalition government, by then almost entirely Conservative supported, was re-elected and remained in power until 1922. His own Liberal Party, on the other hand, emerged from the war unelectable.

342 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Lloyd George’s conviction was that the war could only be won by a total commitment of all the nation’s energies to the war effort. But he was reluctant to achieve these aims by an increase in the general level of taxation and therefore much of the war was financed by inflationary government borrowing. From 1916 onwards, war certificates were widely available and their interest was guaranteed. Together with the general increase in civilian wage levels, the effects were to be economically problematic after the end of the war. No war of such extent and severity had ever been fought, and Lloyd George, even with his earlier experience as a high-spending chancellor, could not have predicted these effects. But economists were warning of it, and perhaps he might have paid attention. He was certainly determined to harness industry entirely to the war effort. He had been among the group which had pressurised Asquith into state control of railways and coal, and as prime minister he encouraged the systems of dilution and mass production which transformed British industry. Tanks, which had not been used in battle until 1917, were in mass production within a few weeks of the Battle of the Ancre. Even more striking is the development of aircraft production. A total of 52,027 aircraft were manufactured in the war, particularly in the last two years. As a comparison, during the Second World War only just over 110,000 planes were produced. And the production of munitions, which had played such a significant role in the government changes which had brought Lloyd George to power, was also galvanised. The appointment of Winston Churchill as minister of munitions ensured that factories were exhorted and cajoled into increased efficiency and that the fronts were adequately supplied. The provision of agricultural subsidies from 1917 onwards, aimed to reduce the need for food importation, produced a modest revival in farming and set British agriculture on a course of subsidised ‘cheap food’ which is only being shaken off as the twenty-first century gets under way. Lloyd George was able to appoint the ‘right’ people, because he had little regard for the proper protocols of ministerial appointment. One of his first actions was to streamline the war cabinet, which had been allowed to grow to unwieldy proportions as Asquith’s grip had relaxed. He was happy to work with people who were not strictly politicians, such as the newspaper magnate Max Aitken (Lord Beaverbrook), who became minister of information in 1918. His appointments were made regardless of political party: the successive controllers of food were both Liberals of the traditional type, first Lord Rhondda and then William Beveridge, and he was also willing to use Labour men where he thought they could be useful, especially in industrial matters, where they were able to persuade the trade union movement to accept work conditions against which their members had been struggling for decades. In dealing with the armed forces, Lloyd George was less successful. Although he was convinced that the carnage on the Western Front was not the best way to win the war, he was unable to sway the military leaders to change their view and was hampered by the earlier disaster of the change of front towards the Dardanelles. Generals like Haig continued to follow unhindered the policy of massive attacks from the trenches, despite the growing popular horror at the massive casualty lists. Lloyd George knew it was important to maintain public confidence in what was being done, and one of his leadership successes was to strengthen the role of propaganda. An initial action of his newly reduced war cabinet, meeting on 9 December 1916, was to discuss the need to inform and

ESSAYS • 343

encourage the people more strongly, and the Department of Information was established in spring 1917, becoming a full ministry, with Beaverbrook in the cabinet, in January 1918. Although the department, and later ministry, feuded with the Foreign Office and annoyed the military leaders to a considerable extent, it did important work, not least in the use of film and the new medium of radio. Lloyd George had been enormously impressed when he watched the film about the Battle of the Somme, as his mistress Frances Stevenson recorded in her diary,20 and he encouraged the use of this medium in all aspects of war and home front propaganda. A sense of purpose was regarded as lacking as the war dragged on and on, and for this reason the National War Aims Committee was established, as was the Ministry of Reconstruction. Planning for the future was recognised by the prime minister as a way of bringing the public together for one final effort. The fact that his ‘a land fit for heroes’ campaign came to nothing was a cause of his fall in 1922, because the aspirations he had raised had been so high. Lloyd George was aware in other ways that dissent was growing; the treatment of both conscientious objectors and men invalided out with mental rather than physical damage was moderated in the final months of the war, as the government looked forward rather than back. The responsiveness to nuances of popular mood was one of his strengths. Even in the days before ‘mass media’ made performance important, he knew how to coin key and telling phrases and to catch the people’s imagination. A good war leader is usually one who makes victory possible, and Lloyd George had intensified government control and expanded production and commitment to achieve this. But he was, for the second half of the war, building on the work done in the first half, under Asquith’s leadership, much of it by men he later continued to employ in his own cabinet. Thus, unlike his counterpart in the Second World War, Churchill, his achievement can only be assessed in the context of his predecessors in power, rather than as a whole new approach to war and to the winning of war.

a) b)

How well prepared was Britain for war in 1914? (15 marks) To what extent was the replacement of Asquith by Lloyd George unexpected? (15 marks)

Part (a) requires you to evaluate whether the preparations made were adequate, and the phrasing of part (b) should remind you to consider the mental attitudes of the government as well as the material preparations. Be sure to consider the army as well as the navy, and to look at the extent to which the civilian side of the war was prepared: industry and production and the issue of morale. All these aspects of preparedness lead into part (b): the build-up of hostility to Asquith in terms of war supply as well as domestic issues. You also need to consider the manoeuvrings of Lloyd George and his group, but the key aspect of both parts of this question is the ability to conduct a successful war.

344 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

9. War aims and the peace settlement a) b)

How and why did Britain’s war aims change during the Great War? How adequately were the war aims met by the Peace Settlement of 1919?

(15 marks) (15 marks)

a) Britain’s war aims at the very beginning of the war were limited and clearly enunciated. The outrageous behaviour of Germany in breaching Belgium’s neutrality was the subject of the British ultimatum, and German withdrawal and compensation was at first demanded as the only condition of peace. As the war continued, however, these demands were refined and extended. Reasons for this were, first and foremost, the extraordinary cost of fighting a prolonged and technologically complex war. As war expenses mounted to levels undreamed of, the question of some kind of reparation was discussed. But as far as the public was concerned, the stories of brutal German atrocities were more significant. Although most of these stories were demonstrated, in the 1920s, to be fabrications, during the war they had a powerful impact on the popular imagination: babies bayoneted, nuns raped, churches burned, all these were crimes for which some real punishment and compensation was essential. As the war spread across the world, wherever there were German colonists able to attack, or be attacked by, neighbouring British or French colonists, discussions with France focused on ways of securing the empires of the two Entente powers from this kind of attack, whether by disarming German colonies abroad, or by actually removing key territories from the Kaiser’s control. It was also felt that the German military strength must never again be allowed to threaten world peace, and so levels of permissible armament were debated. In Britain, the pre-war concern about the German naval construction programme had been completely vindicated by the failure to defeat the German fleet at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Although signalled as a victory, the losses indicated that the British Navy was far from the invincible machine it had been thought to be. Thus there was a growing demand that Germany’s armed forces should be limited in the future. The question of German territory within Europe was not at first an issue, other than the return to France of Alsace and Lorraine, the provinces taken by Germany in 1871. But the duration and ferocity of the war meant that France and Belgium were keen to gain some recompense. The defining moment, however, as far as territorial confiscations were concerned, was the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. The USA, distant and prospering, was against any form of territorial loss, other than the correcting of annexations; but even Woodrow Wilson was shocked when the desperate Russian Soviets were asked to surrender enormous areas of territory, including all of Poland and the Baltic provinces, into the hands of Germany. The view as the end of the war approached was that Germany was to be treated as it had treated Russia, which meant removing at least non-German lands from its control. The government differed from the people in its approach to simple and personal revenge. The terrible death rate of the war, the images of ruined churches as the Germans embarked upon their last retreat, the popular vision of the dictatorial regime of the kaiser, all generated a demand for criminal proceedings against him. The end of the tsarist regime in Russia had meant that the last months of the war could be depicted as democracy locked in combat with totalitarianism.

ESSAYS • 345

The sultan and the kaisers of Germany and Austria-Hungary had to be removed, and the German kaiser, clearly the group’s leader, should be punished. As the war ended, the slogan ‘Hang the Kaiser’ gained a great deal of currency. At the same time, the demand for financial compensation grew, as it seemed to be the answer to many of the nation’s problems. War weariness and the desire to tackle the many problems of the post-war world meant that once the war was over the people were willing to leave the negotiations to their leaders. Although there was some dissatisfaction with the comparative moderation of the treaties, they generally met the main demands of the British public. b) The 1919 settlement fulfilled most of the government’s aims. The German overseas empire was removed, with the territories being put into the protectorship of the victorious nations, notably Britain, France and Japan. Effectively, this added the territories to the existing empires: German South West Africa (Namibia) was not given its promised referendum until the 1980s; Britain allowed immigration into its mandated territory of Palestine, which would give rise to serious problems from then onwards. Territory in China was mandated to Japan rather than being returned to the Chinese. The disarmament clauses were stringent in the extreme. The German navy was stripped of all its submarines and lost many of its capital ships; the army was reduced to a small fraction of its former size and prevented from having modern equipment such as aircraft and tanks. The frontier defences of the German state were reduced to rubble, and conscription was banned. Loss of land in Europe was greater than the US president had wished, but still less than France and some groups in Britain had hoped. The land taken by Germany from Russia established a range of new countries: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. British economists hoped that these new countries would provide markets for British exports, an expectation which was not met as these new nations established their own industries. Land to the north and east of Germany was removed, but these territories had only been German since the unification wars. The demilitarisation of the Rhineland was thought by British people to be adequate, although the French had hoped for the establishment of a buffer ‘Rhineland Republic’. The negotiators at Versailles were able to resist the most rabid demands for personal punishment of the kaiser. Although Germany was forced to sign the infamous ‘war guilt’ clause, which cleared the legal route to financial reparation, the kaiser was not put on trial and when, on his abdication, he made his way to the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities sensibly provided him with a safe retirement home. His abdication also reduced the arguments for war crimes trials, since the new regime, the Weimar Republic, was seen as fulfilling Woodrow Wilson’s hope that Germany would become fully democratic. The most contentious issue of the settlement, both at the time and in the writing of history ever since, was that of reparations. Woodrow Wilson had hoped that there would be none; the public of the victorious countries, on the contrary, wanted them to be not merely punitive, but also a weapon to ensure the permanent weakness of the German state. A middle view was that damage directly traceable to the German aggression should be compensated by them. The pension payments to widows, orphans and disabled men were regarded as a reasonable charge on the

346 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Germans. Less sound was the confiscation of industrial and military goods to make good war damage. The effect on post-war industry was predicted by various economists, Keynes above all, but their warnings were ignored. If the greatest war aim of the European people could have been summed up in the phrase ‘never again’, the imposition of reparations and territorial loss ensured a level of German bitterness which made another war almost certain. The victorious allies did make a serious attempt to deal with future troubles by embodying the formation of the League of Nations into their settlement. But it was difficult for sovereign nations to hand over their foreign aspirations to an international body, and public attitudes to the League may have been one cause of the failure to achieve this most central of war aims over the next 20 years.

a) b)

What did Britain gain at Versailles? How satisfied were the people of Britain with the outcomes of the peace settlement?

(30 marks) (60 marks)

The British gains at Versailles should be summarised, and you should include a reference to the promise of reparations, both in money and in kind. Part (b) may prove easier if you begin with how adequate and useful the territorial and other gains were; then you can go on to look at other demands, such as the ‘Hang the Kaiser’ movement and the reasons why they were not satisfied. Your conclusion might consider the various economic, social and political factors which left sections of the British public discontented with the peace settlement; and you might go on to predict the harm done by reparations, unimagined at the time of the Versailles treaty.

Part 3: Sources 1. Changes to the structure of Parliament Source A: David Lloyd George in Newcastle, October 1909

The question will be asked: ‘should 500 men, ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed, override the judgement – of millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes the wealth of the country?’ That is one question. Another will be ‘Who ordained that a few should have the land of Britain as a perquisite, who made 10,000 people owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth; who is it – who is responsible for the scheme of things whereby one man who is engaged through life in grinding labour, to win a bare and precarious subsistence for himself, and when at the end of his days he claims at the hands of the community he served a poor pension of 8d a day, he can only get it through a revolution, while another man who does not toil receives every hour of the day, every hour of the night while he slumbers, more than his poor neighbour receives in a whole year of toil?’

SOURCES • 347 Source B: Extracts from the Parliament Act, 1911

Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulations regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; and whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation . . . be it therefore enacted . . . as follows 1.

2.

7.

If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month . . . the Bill shall . . . be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified . . . If any Public Bill . . . is passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not) and . . . is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions, the Bill shall . . . become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified ... Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament.

Source C: The Parliament Bill, 1911. Colonel Griffith Boscawen (Conservative) moving an amendment to Clause 7

If there be any purpose for this Bill, it is that only those measures shall be rushed through here and carried into law which have been directly and immediately before considered by the country, and which may therefore be supposed to have a special mandate. Under my amendment, that will still be possible . . . whereas with the elbow room five years allows, it would be possible for the government not only to carry measures which had undoubtedly been before the government, but to rush in a large number of other measures. Source D: Letter from Asquith to Arthur Balfour and Lord Lansdowne, July 1911

I think it courteous and right, before any public decisions are announced, to let you know how we regard the political situation. When the Parliament Bill in the form which it has now assumed returns to the House of Commons, we shall be compelled to ask the House to disagree with the Lords’ amendments. In the circumstances, should the necessity arise, the government will advise the King to exercise his Prerogative to secure the passing unto law of the Bill in substantially the same form in which it left the House of Commons; and His Majesty has been pleased to signify that he will consider it his duty to accept, and act on, that advice. Source E: Debate on the Trade Union Bill, 1911

Mr Lyttleton (Conservative): In clause 3 of the Bill, among the political objects for which money can be spent, I find the maintenance of Members of Parliament. Why is that in the Bill? . . .

348 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Although payment of Members will be strongly opposed by many on this side of the House, we must take it, I suppose, that the government are determined to pass it. If that is so, the maintenance of Members of Parliament by trade unions becomes no longer necessary.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER a) b) c)

d)

Explain the background to the comments made by Mr Lyttleton (source E) (10) How useful to a historian is the study of the actual text of Acts of Parliament such as source B? (25) By comparing the tone and content of Lloyd George’s speech (source A) and Asquith’s letter (source D) show how the public and private aspects of party political rivalry differed. (25) Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which the Liberal reforms of the early twentieth century made Parliament more democratic than it had been. (60)

ANSWERS

a) Following the Osborne Judgement (1909) it had become illegal for trade union subscriptions to be applied to the payment of MPs. In practice, this meant that it was not possible for working men to be MPs, since neither salaries nor expenses were payable. As part of the ‘reward’ for Labour Party support of the Liberals in the dispute with the House of Lords, legislation to provide for the payment of MPs was planned to bypass the problem caused by the Osborne decision. At the same time, however, legislation designed to restore the status of trade unions before the law was also being discussed, including the provision to which Mr Lyttleton refers. His point that payment of MPs meant that ‘maintenance of Members of Parliament by trade unions becomes no longer necessary’ was not in fact accepted, although the principle of ‘contracting out’ was adopted and, almost a century after the introduction of payment for MPs, some trade unions continue to sponsor Members of Parliament. b) The study of the precise wording of statutes is useful to historians who wish to avoid the distortions of interpretation. On the other hand, the legal requirements of drafting legislation make most statutes very complex and repetitive and therefore in most compilations, as in this source, cuts are made. There may be no intention of distorting the sense or meaning of the act, but only in the calendar of public acts is a verbatim version likely to be available. Studying the actual terms of a statute therefore provides an insight into the imperative for drafters to pay close attention to detail and to avoid ambiguity, if necessary by apparent repetition. It is also possible to recognise the progression from one clause of the act and to see how one clause may make another necessary or advisable: thus, having in earlier clauses set up effectively a dictatorship of the lower house, Clause 7 was recognised as necessary to ensure that such absolute legislative power could not be wielded for more than two years without referring to the electorate in a general election.

SOURCES • 349

Many statutes include the reasoning, or supposed reasoning, behind the new legislation; in the context of the early twenty-first century, the references to future, further reform of the House of Lords is particularly interesting, although clearly similar constraints and reluctance applied then. On the other hand, the words of a statute will not give the detail of why a piece of legislation is put forward, often glossing over, as in this act, the political dispute which brought about the law. It is clear that the drafting of statute law requires clarity, but without added explanation, the detail often appears to be needlessly complex. The use of formal language is not particularly helpful to the general reader and thus historians, as well as making use of the statute, need to be able to explain the underlying factors and to elucidate the details which make a piece of legislation significant. c) Source A shows Lloyd George at his fluent political best, while source D reveals the more courteous workings of politics at Westminster. Both have the same purpose, however, to push the House of Lords into concessions it had not wished to make. Both have an underlying ruthlessness, although Asquith’s is perhaps more camouflaged – and yet more directed – than the Newcastle speech. The public nature of Lloyd George’s outburst makes his use of offensive terms more powerful; for instance, his suggestion that the Lords were ‘chosen at random’ and the equating of their lifestyle with that of the unemployed. While Asquith does not hint that the Lords are in any way at fault, Lloyd George does not hesitate to impute the worst, tyrannical motives to them; his description of the grinding poverty of life for the poor is designed for public consumption, while Asquith is offering is a private opportunity settle a dispute before it is too late. Both, however, imply the threat of a greater authority than themselves: Lloyd George specifically mentions the word ‘revolution’, while Asquith makes clear that the king is definitively on his side. Suggesting that the Liberal government will ‘be compelled’ to ask the House of Commons to go against the Lords ruling, he emphasises that the king has already agreed to do what is necessary to support the elected chamber against the Lords. Both these sources show ways of achieving political ends, and both can be seen in action throughout modern British politics: the public vilification of the opposing party, coupled with negotiation behind closed doors, and the use of private threats to enable face-saving decisions to be made out of the public eye. Of the two approaches, it was probably Asquith’s which had the greater effect: while the budget was accepted by the Lords in due course, the acceptance had more to do with the long parliamentary tradition of not opposing money bills. As far as the Parliament Bill was concerned, on the other hand, the Liberals could be accused of going against centuries of tradition, and thus Asquith needed to appeal to an even older tradition, that of the monarchy. And Asquith’s gentlemanly threat had the desired effect: the ‘Ditchers’ (those Lords who were prepared to ‘fight to the last ditch’) found themselves steadily reducing in number and eventually avoiding the decision by being absent from the House of Lords on the day of the crucial vote. Politicians used whatever means they thought would be effective, both in public and in private, then as now. d) The Liberal governments of 1906–14 certainly used the vocabulary of popular representation when arguing for their policy changes. As Lloyd George’s speech in source A shows, they were keen to demonstrate to the electorate that they stood for radical change, no matter what reactionary forces stood in the way. The expenditure to be fuelled by the ‘People’s Budget’ was at least partly social spending, although defence was also a substantial element. The Parliament Bill, which

350 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

is the subject of both sources B and C, was portrayed as reducing the power of the nondemocratic House of Lords, but its effect was to increase the power of the Commons rather than enhancing popular participation in the system. As the twenty-first century gets under way, the promise of the preamble, that a popular system for selecting the second house would arrive, seems only a little closer than it was a hundred years ago. The MP whose amendment is quoted in source C knew the risk of House of Commons dictatorship: however democratically elected the Commons might be, there was nothing to restrain them other than the threat of the next election. The Parliament Bill addressed this concern partly by reducing the period of time between general elections from seven years to five. But Colonel Griffith Boscawen recommended a further cut, to three years, which would have ensured that any bill opposed by the Lords would have been scrutinised by the voters at a general election before being forced through. It is interesting to note that only by ‘asking the King’ as described in source D, can a less traditional system replace the ancient power of the landed aristocracy. Putting more power into the hands of the Commons was not, however, to make the system more notably democratic, unless the make-up of the Commons itself was altered. Source E reminds us that, until the Trade Union Bill under debate was passed, the Osborne 1909 Judgement blocked the use of trade union funds to support MPs; as the source suggests, the legislation providing for the payment of MPs from state funds was to make trade union sponsorship much less necessary. The Conservative MP quoted here argued the case against the restoration of the political levy, and it could have been argued further that to have vested interests like the trade unions paying for politicians was deeply anti-democratic. The trade unions were already powerful in some singleindustry areas like the coal mine towns which, it has been suggested, were the last remaining ‘pocket boroughs’. Nevertheless, if working men could be enabled to stand as Members of Parliament, democracy could be said to be enhanced. Thus these sources indicate an increased possibility of popular participation in politics, as well as a reduction in the power of the unelected House. Despite these reforms, Britain remained much less than fully democratic. Despite a sustained campaign, the Liberals refused to enfranchise women, so that half the adult population was excluded from the democratic and parliamentary process. Even when MPs were paid, under the 1911 Act the selection procedures for both major parties remained elitist and arcane. Working men were not represented by ‘their own kind’ except in a small number of urban seats. Progress towards democracy had, however, been made and weakening the House of Lords’ veto ensured that later reforms would pass into law with less difficulty.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) Explain what the king had agreed to do in ‘exercising his prerogative’ (source D). (3 marks) b) For what reasons did Conservative MPs, such as the one quoted in source E, object to the idea of state payment for Members of Parliament? (5 marks)

SOURCES • 351

c) How effective do you find Lloyd George’s speech in Newcastle (source A) as a piece of political propaganda? d) What can a historian learn from studying the verbatim reports of parliamentary debates, such as those quoted in sources C and E? e) To what extent do these sources give a complete picture of the changes made during the Liberal ministry to the way in which Parliament was structured?

(5 marks)

(5 marks)

(12 marks)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE C a) b) c)

Explain in your own words the intention of the Clause of the Parliament Bill to which Colonel Boscawen was referring. What aspects of the 1909 budget had caused the Lords to reject it and thus precipitate a constitutional crisis? How true is it that ‘the Conservatives had relied for many years on the power of the House of Lords to achieve their Party aims’?

(5) (7) (18)

2. Votes for women Source F: Asquith’s view

The inequalities which democracy requires we should fight against and remove are the unearned privileges and the artificial distinction which man has made, and which man can unmake. They are not those indelible differences of faculty and function by which Nature herself has given diversity and richness to human society. Source G: Mrs Pankhurst speaking at the Albert Hall, 1912

There is something which governments care for more than human life, and that is security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy . . . Be militant each in your own way. Those of you who can express your militancy by going to the House of Commons and refusing to leave without satisfaction – do so. Those of you who can express militancy by facing party mobs at Cabinet Ministers’ meetings, when you remind them of their falseness to principle – do so . . . Those of you who can break windows – break them. Those of you who can still further attack the secret idol of property so as to make the Government realise that property is as greatly endangered by Women’s Suffrage as it was by the Chartists of old – do so. And my last word to the government is . . . take me if you dare!

352 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19 Source H: Prisoners Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health Act

If the Secretary of State is satisfied that by reason of the condition of a prisoner’s health it is undesirable to detain him in prison, but that, such condition of health being due in whole or in part to the prisoner’s own conduct in prison, it is desirable that his release shall be temporary and conditional only, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, by order authorise the temporary discharge of the prisoner for such period and subject to such conditions as may be stated in the order. Any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the order of temporary discharge, and shall return to prison at the expiration of the period stated in the order . . . And if the prisoner fails so to comply or return, he may be arrested without warrant and taken back into prison. Where a prisoner under sentence is discharged in pursuance of an order of temporary discharge, the currency of the sentence shall be suspended from the day on which he is discharged from prison under the order to the day on which he is received back into prison. (Note: Acts of Parliament normally used the pronoun ‘he’ to describe people of either gender.) Source I: A twentieth-century historian sums up one strand of opposition to women’s suffrage

A woman could never fulfil the vital obligation of citizenship of fighting for her country. It is probably no accident that . . . many notable imperial figures, such as . . . Joseph Chamberlain, Kipling and Asquith were prominent opponents of women’s suffrage. In their view an imperial nation must be ever-prepared for war, which women would tend to obstruct. Moreover, they questioned whether an imperial power like Britain could retain the respect of those it governed, especially in countries with large Muslim populations, if at home it depended upon an electorate of women for its authority. Politically conscious Indians already looked to Irish nationalism for an example; woman suffrage would only stimulate incipient demands for voting rights by native peoples.

THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND THEIR ANSWERS, ARE DESIGNED ON THE PATTERN OF THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 1 a) b) c) d) e)

What is the name commonly given to the Statute quoted in source H? (3 What were the circumstances which led to the passing of the Statute quoted in source H? (5 How far do sources F and I provide a complete summary of the arguments used against providing women with the right to vote? (5 How effective do you consider Mrs Pankhurst’s speech to be as a rallying call to action? (5 Using these sources and your own knowledge, consider the view that the Pankhursts’ campaign slowed rather than speeding the enfranchisement of women. (12

marks) marks) marks) marks)

marks)

SOURCES • 353 ANSWERS

a) This statute is known as the ‘Cat and Mouse’ Act because the release and re-arrest of prisoners was reminiscent of a cat ‘playing’ with a caught but not yet killed mouse. b) The issue which had led directly to the act was hunger striking. Members of the WSPU, imprisoned for militant activities, continued their campaign in gaol by refusing food, either claiming that they were political prisoners, which is not a concept that exists in British law, or stating that, having not been involved in the legislative process, they could not be held prisoners under the law of the land. The authorities, who at first responded by ignoring the hunger-strikers, realised that they might starve themselves into martyrdom and moved to a policy of forcible feeding. The home secretary, Winston Churchill, was aware that the deaths of young women from ‘good’ families would be unacceptable. But the WSPU publicised the horrors, and dangers, of what they termed ‘torture’, and published graphic pictures of young women held down by brutal gaolers while metal and rubber tubes were forced retchingly into their stomachs, sometimes damaging the oesophagus or putting fluid into the lungs. The answer appeared to be to release prisoners until their health recovered, but without including the release time in the term of their sentence. c) Asquith’s claim was that the ‘natural’ difference between men and women was not something which governments should interfere with and, as source I suggests, this was extended into an argument about patriotic obligations – women would never be called upon to fight for their country and should not have the right to vote. (The patriotic argument of source I was in fact reflected in the 1918 Act which enfranchised men who had fought in the Great War at a younger age than men who had not.). The argument about ‘nature’ was extended by other opponents of women’s suffrage: one doctor, writing in The Times, notoriously suggested that a woman’s menstrual cycle might make her dangerously irrational at times, and other writers claimed that women were too sensitive to risk the dangers of the polling station. It was also argued that in the territories of the Empire, especially the Islamic countries, a female electorate might cause the imperial power to be less highly regarded, but that, at the same time, it might inspire unrepresented peoples to insist on also being enfranchised. Other arguments not mentioned here were also used, however: the suggestion that women would always vote as ordered by their husbands (or fathers or brothers if single) seemed to indicate that the enfranchisement of women would be worthless, merely doubling existing votes. On the other hand, the issue of how women and their representatives might wish taxation money to be spent was also seen as a matter for anxiety, particularly since, even before the Great War, women outnumbered men and this might be reflected in political life. d) Mrs Pankhurst’s speech is a fine example of a call to action: she identifies the weakest point of ‘the enemy’ clearly, namely ‘security of property’, and then moves on to suggest a range of actions which might be undertaken by her followers. This provides choices according to the capabilities and commitment of the listeners: women reluctant to damage property can take more moderate action by attending meetings, although she reminds them of the potential unpleasantness of even supposedly non-violent meetings, so that they will not feel that they are facing no danger. While specifically recommending some forms of violence against property, she does not go into detail about the most aggressive actions possible, although judging by the direction the militant campaign took after this meeting, it is reasonable to deduce that she is referring to arson.

354 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Finally, she links herself closely to her followers, in challenging the government, ‘take me if you dare’. It is a measure of her leadership that she could be, and on several occasions was, arrested: her older daughter Christabel directed much of the campaign from the safety of Paris. Judging from this reported version, the speech is perhaps not as inspirational and demagogic as it might have been – there are no pauses for shouts of support – but it does confirm her leadership and her confidence in the willingness of her followers to do her bidding. e) The Pankhursts, and particularly Mrs Pankhurst, are closely linked with the history of women’s rights and it is clear that the militant campaign ensured that the issue was rarely out of the public eye in the years before the Great War. But it is less clear whether the publicity value of their campaign was matched by any direct effect. Source F suggests that not even a Liberal government would have been ready to legislate to provide votes for women and source I confirms that very influential public figures were deeply hostile to women’s suffrage. That any type of campaign would have convinced such men as Rudyard Kipling seems improbable. On the other hand, the intrinsic irresponsibility of damaging property and disrupting meetings might have alienated ‘powers abroad’, and giving in to such a campaign would certainly have made Britain appear weak. The influence of the suffragettes may be noted, however: the extension of protest into hunger strike became one of the standard methods of protest against imperialism across the world. Source H, the ‘Cat and Mouse’ Act, further confirms the annoyance caused by the campaign, especially the refusal of food in prison. The intrinsic injustice of the Act is revealed most directly in the last quoted clause: the length of a sentence could be extended almost indefinitely as women spent six or seven days without food, followed by three weeks on recuperating licence, before another few days in prison; and as their overall health declined, the spells in prison shortened while the recuperatory periods lengthened. Since the police also watched the ‘mouse holes’ of suffragette recovery, public opinion might be swayed by the injustice as it had not been by the campaign itself. Mrs Pankhurst’s speech, source G, shows a level of disregard for the law unlikely to endear itself to any ‘respectable’ Member of Parliament, but it also, by implication, demonstrates the greatest weakness of the Pankhurst campaign: their supporters were drawn from the social classes who could attend lengthy meetings, spend days damaging property, and risk imprisonment away from their families. Emmeline and Christabel, with many members of the WSPU, rejected or ignored the claim to enfranchisement of poor and working women and mothers, disowning Sylvia when she began to recruit women in the East End of London. The WSPU argument of equality of rights was weakened when they appeared to demand a property qualification for women more severe than the broad qualifications of men. These sources suggest that the militant campaign alienated many people and thus possibly delayed the granting of voting rights to women. On the other hand, there is no mention here of the other issues preoccupying the Liberal government – the question of Home Rule, the growing Labour unrest and the worsening international situation. There is no evidence that Asquith’s government would have enfranchised women if they had merely sat at home and waited. Women from the classes which had actively supported the WSPU were enfranchised in 1918, and it was suggested that this was as a ‘reward’ for their patriotic demeanour during the War – Mrs Pankhurst called the militant campaign to a halt on the outbreak of war, and led a demonstration to offer to help. Only Sylvia, recognising how the poor suffered in war, continued her campaign, leading pacifist and anti-conscription protests. A more cynical view of the ‘reward’ theory would be that Lloyd

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 355

George feared the resumption of the militant campaign, and in that sense it might be suggested that the Pankhurst’s campaign had accelerated the provision of limited suffrage for women.

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE OCR DOCUMENT STUDIES PAPER, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ENABLE YOU TO PRACTISE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL MEET a) b) c)

d)

How full a summary of the militant campaign is provided by Mrs Pankhurst’s speech (source G)? Why were suffragettes so enraged by the passing of the act quoted in source H? (25) In the context of the British electorate of the early twentieth century, how valid were the arguments against women’s suffrage offered by Martin Pugh (source I)? Use your own knowledge to evaluate the extent to which these sources confirm the view that ‘there was nothing liberal about the attitudes of Liberal ministers to Women’s Suffrage.’

(10)

(25)

(60)

IF YOU ARE STUDYING FOR THE EDEXCEL UNIT TEST 3, YOU MAY TRY THIS EXERCISE AS PRACTICE. STUDY SOURCE G a) b) c)

To what was Mrs Pankhurst referring when she spoke of the ‘falseness to principle’ of cabinet ministers? (5) What kind of actions did the members of the WSPU undertake during their militant campaign? (7) By what stages and for what reasons did women gain the right to vote? (18)

Part 4: Historical skills 1. Stranded time line or spider chart of the Liberal and Coalition ministries of 1905–18 This book has considered the various key developments of this period in different chapters; you may find it useful to bring all these topics together so that you can take an overview of the achievements of the Liberals. It is also, of course, a helpful way of revising all that you have studied.

356 • THE LIBERAL AND COALITION MINISTRIES, 1906–19

Agree a way to show, in a unified form, the developments of these years in: • • • • •

politics and political change (Ch 8); foreign affairs (Ch 8); social and public health reforms (Ch 4); Ireland (Ch 6); economic and technological developments (Ch 3).

To demonstrate your team’s work to the rest of your group, you may decide to make a presentation about one particular year, so that you can identify all the preoccupations of the government at one specific point in time. If you decide to do this, it is important to allocate the years around the group, so that there is not too much repetition.

References for Chapter 8 1. G. Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Constable and Co., London, 1961, p. 157 2. L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, p. 161 3. Keith Wilson (ed.), British Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Policy: From Crimean War to First World War, Croom Helm, London, 1986 4. L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, pp. 157–8 5. Graham D. Goodlad, British Foreign and Imperial Policy 1865–1919, Routledge, London, 2000 6. Graham D. Goodlad, British Foreign and Imperial Policy 1865–1919, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 97. 7. Graham D. Goodlad, British Foreign and Imperial Policy 1865–1919, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 101 8. Quoted in L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen, London, 1955, p. 192 9. Bible, Colossians Ch 3 v18 10. Bible, Isaiah Ch 9 v2 11. Lawrence James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, Little, Brown and Co., London, 1997 12. Hampshire, ‘Spy Fever in Britain 1900–1914’, The Historian, no. 72, winter 2001, pp. 22–7 13. Alan S. Milward, The Economic Effects of the Two World Wars in Britain, Macmillan, London, 1984, p. 12 14. Elizabeth Roberts, Women’s Work 1840–1940, Macmillan, London, 1988, p. 38 15. These films are available on a video compilation called ‘War Women of Britain’ from the Imperial War Museum, London 16. Figures from Jocelyn Hunt and Sheila Watson, Britain and the Two World Wars, CUP, Cambridge, 1990, p. 51 17. Quoted in Rt Hon. the Earl of Ronaldsay, Life of Lord Curzon, John Murray, London, 1928, vol. 3, pp. 121–2 18. Stephen Koss, Asquith, Hamilton, London, 1976 19. Quoted in R.J. Scally, Origins of the Lloyd George Coalition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975, p. 47 20. A.J.P. Taylor (ed.), Lloyd George: A Diary by Frances Stevenson, OUP, London, 1971, p. 84

HISTORICAL SKILLS • 357

Sources A. Quoted in Robert Pearce and Roger Stearn, Government and Reform: Britain 1815–1918, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1994, pp. 113–14 B. Public General Acts, HMSO, 1911 C. Hansard, Ch. 15, 2, Geo V D. Quoted in G. Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Constable and Co., London, 1961, p. 51 E. Hansard Ch. 15, 2, Geo V F. Hansard, 27/4/92, Vic. 45 c. 1513 G. Quoted in G Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Constable and Co., London, 1961, p. 188 H. Public General Acts, HMSO, 1913 I. Martin Pugh, Women’s Suffrage in Britain, 1867–1928, The Historical Association, London, 1980, pp. 11–12

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 9

Conclusions and Next Steps

360 • CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Conclusions The years from 1846 to 1918 saw extreme changes in virtually every aspect of British life. This book has provided an overview of some of these changes; you now have the opportunity to consider some or all these developments throughout the whole period and to decide what you think about the period. Was life ‘better’ at the end of the period than it had been at the beginning? The Victorians and Edwardians certainly believed that they were living in a time of constant improvement, a confidence which was only deflated by the shock of the First World War.

The development of democracy in Britain From an electorate of less than three-quarters of a million to one in which almost all adult males and some adult females were enfranchised was a change which had been prefigured in 1832, but which gathered momentum in the 1860s and beyond. Effects of this seminal change may be seen in almost every aspect of life in Britain. The shifting balance between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is one such effect. The probability grew that the prime minister would sit in the House of Commons, although, almost to the end of the nineteenth century, there were noble leaders of both the main parties. But the key debates of the period were Commons debates, and prime ministers were particularly anxious to convince and placate the lower house.

Changes in political parties and the formation of the Labour Party The changes in the actual membership of the House of Commons brought about by the extension of the franchise were slower to manifest themselves. The fortunes of the two main political parties of the nineteenth century were affected by issues of principle more than by the growing electorate: split by the issue of the corn laws at the start of this period, the Conservatives were to be divided again in the early years of the twentieth century by the question of protectionism versus free trade. The Liberals, on the other hand, were torn in two by the Home Rule debate. Their recovery from the Unionists’ defection was scarcely complete before the rise of the Labour Party removed much of their support among the working classes and made them, effectively, a party without a popular following. The Labour Party’s rise was slower than might have been expected. Although male urban workers had been enfranchised in 1867 and trade unions had begun to sponsor working men to stand as MPs, the decisive shift away from the Liberal Party happened only with the added pressure of a world war and a Liberal/Conservative coalition. Reasons for this slow beginning may be traced in the type of education provided for the poorer classes and the habits of deference which took so long to eradicate. The limited support for the Chartists at the beginning of the period may indicate a general feeling that politics were not the business of the poor. The development of political awareness among the working classes took time to gain momentum, but has shaped our society ever since.

CONCLUSIONS • 361

The status and rights of women Meanwhile, the political status of women was even slower to change. For much of this period, women had been the subject of protecting or liberating legislation, whether about their working conditions, their rights over their property, or their status within marriage and parenthood. In the workplace, some had demonstrated that they were well able to make and sustain their own demands for improved conditions. A laborious series of laws had gradually improved the lives of working-class women, limiting their working hours and progressively removing them from the most dangerous workplaces. The growing strength of the trade unions, by forcing up wages for men, had reduced the need which had pushed women and young children into the factories and mines. At the same time, educated women, in small numbers, gradually penetrated the professions. The expansion of education from the 1870 act onwards provided more opportunities for women as teachers. That other stereotypical ‘woman’s’ profession, nursing, also became respectable in this period, thanks to the work of Florence Nightingale. The establishment’s failure to acknowledge their existence in national political terms was the more infuriating, once they were able to participate fully in local government. The right to vote, and even to stand as candidates in local elections, had led women to suppose that they would soon vote at the national level, and the failure of successive governments to support the necessary legislation aroused fury. By the outbreak of the First World War, the failure to enfranchise women had led to one of the most prolonged campaigns of violent protest ever seen in the capital.

The importance and status of the monarchy The fact that Queen Victoria had set her mind against votes for women is one of the many extraordinary characteristics of this extraordinary woman: a mother of nine who disliked babies and feared childbirth; a doting wife who nevertheless did not allow her husband to play any significant part in her constitutional duties, and a woman who, even through her long period of mourning, was reluctant to allow her son and heir any practice in the role he would one day fill. Victoria’s influence had been significant in almost every government of her reign: her dislike of Palmerston and her fondness for Disraeli affected appointments and policy. At the same time, her long mourning brought the monarchy as close to unpopularity as it had been in the last years of the eighteenth century. It seems unlikely that the power of the House of Lords would have been reduced had it been she and not her grandson who was asked to apply pressure.

Social developments in medicine and health, education and social welfare The death of Prince Albert from typhoid may seem strange, since this was the period when the great epidemic diseases which derive from unsanitary conditions were finally brought under control. A slow but steady stream of legislation improved the appalling conditions in which people lived, although much remained to be done at the end of this period. It was not, for example, until the middle of the twentieth century that a majority of households had indoor lavatories. But housing was improved, pollution reduced and green spaces preserved by state action in the second half of the nineteenth century. At the same time, the realization of the need for cleanliness in

362 • CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

medical procedures began to reduce the number of deaths from septicaemia, particularly in child birth. The state’s role was extended into every aspect of its citizens’ life. Revised views of economics convinced the ruling classes that poverty was not always the individual’s fault, and the treatment of paupers became less inhumane. Education for all had wide-ranging effects. At the most basic, it ensured that by the 1890s very few children of either sex were in paid employment. Politics and journalism felt the impact of a population which could read and had been trained to be hungry for information.

Transport, industry and agriculture The most radical transformations of this rapidly changing period came in transport. From moving at foot or, at best, horse pace just before the start of the period, by the early twentieth century people could move from one end of the country to another within hours, by train or, if rich, by car, and from one country to the other end of the world within days rather than months. Ships no longer dependent on wind but rather on fuel supplies, meant that transport became less seasonal. And soon, air transport would put the whole world within reach of the – admittedly wealthy – traveller. At the same time, goods and raw materials could move across the world in a way undreamed of before. Benefiting Britain at first, as the markets of the world lay at the mercy of British industry, the shrinking world had, by the end of the period, reversed the trend, bringing into Britain the manufactured goods and agricultural products of countries which could produce better and more cheaply. The effect was a downturn in the economy and particularly in agriculture, which would accelerate in the years after the artificial boom of the Great War The greatest change of the period was the urbanisation of Britain, although, as Simon Schama and other historians point out, the ‘English dream’ continues to be of a rural idyll which, if it ever existed, had disappeared by the 1880s. The majority of British citizens live in towns, and this has been the case since the mid-nineteenth century.

Ireland This period began with the tragedy of the famine in Ireland, and the question of Ireland continued to be at the forefront of British politics until after the First World War. The centuries of colonial landlordism and impoverishment throughout much of rural Ireland helped to bring about the disaster by encouraging the Irish to depend on a single crop. And the response of successive British governments, grudging and at the same time patronising, ensured that the issue would develop and become insoluble over the next decades. The partition of Ireland, seen as a reasonable solution at the end of the Great War, was the last in a series of policy compromises, each of which caused more problems than it solved.

NEXT STEPS • 363

Foreign possessions, alliances and wars The nineteenth century is the period of the Empire on which the sun never set, although it was to grow even larger at the end of the First World War before beginning to shrink. The motives for imperialism, a mixture of economic hunger and desire for glory, appear unattractive to the modern eye, but the Empire played an increasing role in the formation of British literature, politics and civic pride as the century moved to its end. It also led to a long series of wars, which kept the British army busy and the British Navy large and imposing, while touching the lives of thousands at home as well as abroad. Along the south chancel aisle of York Minster, for example, there is a long series of memorials to soldiers who died in the imperial wars of the nineteenth century: they range across the world from New Zealand to Egypt and from Fiji to the Caribbean. The Empire affected every British ministry, but it also affected relationships with foreign powers. Whether isolated by its own wish or through the envy of others, Britain had to guard the route to India and keep an eye on European powers which might threaten its holdings abroad. Britain fought against Russia and supported Turkey; mistrusted France and let it fall prey to the growing power of Prussia; but in the end felt compelled to become involved in the kind of foreign alliance it had avoided for much of this period, and thus become involved in a major war. Although Britain emerged from the First World War with its status as a great power apparently intact, the world domination, in terms of economics and naval power, which had been the key feature of the period of this book, had imperceptibly begun to crumble. Britain would never again be as it had been in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Next Steps Historical interpretation You will have noticed on several occasions as you have studied this period that, while the basic facts have been comparatively clear, historians differ about the interpretation to be placed upon them. During your second year of Advanced Level study, therefore, historiography and evaluating the differing conclusions of historians will play a larger part than it has done so far. You already have the skills you need to help you in this kind of study: you can pick out the key points in an argument and weigh up one set of conclusions against another, testing each to see if it is based on reliable information and reasoning. You have, in some of the source-based questions in this book, evaluated and compared statements from different secondary sources. A2 will give you an opportunity to scrutinise some of these disputed interpretations in more depth. Among the topics which have caused historians to differ, some have been outlined in this book. Any of these would provide an interesting starting point for a more detailed historiographical study, although there are innumerable other topics where historians have failed to agree:

364 • CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

• • • • • • • • • • •

the actual impact and influence of Queen Victoria on political life; Ireland: the famine and its significance; the extent to which Palmerston’s foreign policy was aggressive; the aims and achievements of Disraeli and his imperialistic goals; Gladstone and the Liberals: their claim to have achieved major social reforms; the causes and impact of the agricultural ‘depression’ of the 1870s; the real purposes of imperialism and the Scramble for Africa; the rights and wrongs of the Boer War; the extent to which the militant campaign helped or hindered the cause of women’s suffrage; the part played by Britain’s foreign policies in bringing about the Great War; Lloyd George and his part in the overthrow of Asquith.

Study in depth A2 will also give you an opportunity to study topics in a more thematic way, extending the depth and range of your research. An individual study will enable you to combine detailed research into a particular theme with a discussion of how historians’ views change over time and differ from one another. Among the many possible themes which arise from your study of the period 1846–1918, you should look for one which complements and makes use of your own interest, as well as skills and ideas from the other subjects you have been and are studying. Here are some suggestions, although there are many more: • • • •

•

• •

•

•

Developments in politics and political parties in one particular region, about one particular issue, or in one particular period. Ireland and the experience of Irish people at home and abroad. You may wish to focus on perceptions of the Irish, in England, or in the United States. The growth of British holdings abroad and the reasons for the growth of Empire; or a study of a particular colonial holding. Relationships with a particular foreign country. This was a period of changing alliances and international commitments, and you may wish to focus your attention on one particular relationship and the effect it had on politics and society at home. The ways in which the wars of the period were fought. This is the period in which war became mechanised and technology played an increasing part. You may wish to compare the colonial wars of the nineteenth century with the European wars of the same period, or consider how public attitudes changed. Changes in transport, especially if you live in an area where development was and is affected by canals, railways or roads and can give your study a local slant. Changes in industry or agriculture, again, particularly if your area has been physically and economically shaped by nineteenth-century industrial change or by the move from agriculture to industry. Changes in demographic distribution. The ‘new towns’ of the nineteenth century no longer appear new: but the censuses of the century, the rate maps and the street directories will enable you to build a picture of population growth, change and movement. Changes in regulation and state control in one aspect of the economy.

NEXT STEPS • 365

• • •

• •

•

The position of women in society, whether locally or nationally, or in a particular occupation or profession. Changes in medical practice and care. The study of a period before antibiotics may come to have a particular resonance as we enter a period where antibiotics are losing their efficiency. The career and importance of a particular individual of the period. You may choose a person who had an impact on politics, medicine, a particular town, or the cultural life of the period. The brief biographies in this book may give you some ideas of people about whom you would like to find out more. Changing experiences for children. You may wish to consider a particular trade, such as coal mining or chimney sweeping, and trace the developments as they affected children. The novels and poetry of the period, and the extent to which they reflect the key issues of the nineteenth century. This is a particularly interesting topic if you have been reading the literature of the period. Cartoonists and graphic artists of the period and the ways in which they depicted events and personalities. This was a rich period for the depiction, not always in a deferential way, of the people who were shaping the nation. The birth of the satirical magazine Punch, in 1841, widened the audience for cartoonists as compared to the London-centred market for the cartoonists of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Most local art galleries have portraits of local dignitaries, and the National Portrait Gallery has an enormous range both on display and in electronic form.

Finally, if you have decided not to continue to study history after your AS level, you will find that the nineteenth and early twentieth century continue to appear, both in your studies and in your everyday life, whether it is because you: travel by means of transport developed or dreamed of then; note the impact of economic and political ideas current then, and in particular the issue of free trade versus protection; choose whether or not to exercise the right to vote which was so desperately fought for; observe the continuing move from manufacturing goods to importing them, which so worried the economists of the nineteenth century; watch films and plays or read books written in or based on the period; wonder about the names and policies of political parties (why ‘Labour’? why ‘Conservative’?); or notice the remaining ties and tensions of empire and colonialism which endure.

This page intentionally left blank

Biographies of Important Personalities

Prince Albert, 1819–61 Albert was Victoria’s first cousin on her mother’s side. He was an appropriate choice as the husband of a ruling queen of Britain, since he was Protestant and, while of royal blood, came from a state so small as to be insignificant in the complex issues of European politics. Indeed, from the moment of his birth, the possibility that he might marry his cousin, born three months before him, was mentioned, though at the time there was no reason to think that she would ever become queen. They met for the first time in 1836, before she was queen, and she seems to have been very taken with him. She proposed in the autumn of 1839 and they were married in the next year. Albert seems to have handled all the difficulties of his position in an exemplary fashion. He was a stabilising influence on the volatile and emotional queen, resenting – apparently – less than she did the failure to award him a title or to recognise his position in constitutional terms. It was not until 1857 that he was given the title of Prince Consort. His greatest achievement was probably the Great Exhibition of 1851, which welcomed six million visitors and was a showcase for British arts, sciences and industries. Albert pushed the project forward against opposition from both press and politicians. His mediating influence was effective in preventing dangerous conflict over the Trent affair, but he was prevented by constitutional precedent, mixed with British xenophobia, from playing a serious part in public affairs. Although the queen, as can be seen from her letters, disliked having babies (and the couple had nine), their marriage was a happy one, and the death of Albert from typhoid in 1861, plunged her into such deep mourning that the status of the monarchy itself was for a time threatened. But his influence, in assuring that the monarch’s image was one of duty linked with domestic bliss, endured beyond the period of withdrawal. It may be suggested that he ensured that the British monarchy would last throughout the century following his wife’s death, 40 years after his.

Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford, 1852–1928 Herbert Henry Asquith was born in West Yorkshire into a middle-class family. After studying at Oxford, he was called to the Bar in 1876 and practised as a barrister in London for ten years, before being elected as Liberal MP for East Fife (Scotland) in 1886. He was to hold this seat until

368 • BIOGRAPHIES

1918. He first came to public notice during the 1889 Parnell Commission, when he acted as junior counsel for Parnell. He was home secretary in Gladstone’s last ministry (1892–5). During the Boer War, Asquith led the so-called Liberal imperialists, who favoured the war and felt that the Liberals should be more forceful in their foreign policy. But Asquith was a traditional Liberal when it came to free trade, and his eloquence was an important element in the 1905 ‘Liberal Landslide’. He was chancellor of the exchequer under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and became prime minister on Campbell-Bannerman’s retirement (1908). Asquith’s government achieved a great deal, much of it controversial: a major social welfare programme, rearmament, particularly for the Royal Navy, and a reduction in the power of the House of Lords. He was less successful in dealing with the suffragettes, and his efforts to achieve Home Rule for Ireland pushed the Irish to the brink of civil war, although the outbreak of European war in 1914 prevented this. In 1915, Asquith formed a coalition government with the Conservatives, but it was increasingly claimed that his conduct of the war was not vigorous enough. The Conservatives, some Liberals (led by Lloyd George), and the Northcliffe group newspapers (including the Daily Mail and The Times) attacked him relentlessly and at the end of 1916 he resigned and was replaced by Lloyd George, although he remained leader of the Liberals. At the end of the war, he was sufficiently unpopular to lose his East Fife seat, although in 1920 he was elected for Paisley and resumed the leadership of the party from 1923–6. He was made a peer in 1925. Asquith’s significance lies, sadly, in the fact that he presided over the decline into insignificance of one of the two historic parties in British politics. Despite the major achievements of his ministry, it was to be the last one the Liberals ever formed without partners. His style, enhanced by the wit and society position of his second wife, Margot, was that of an Edwardian gentleman, almost incidentally involved in government, and his reluctance to impose discipline on members of his own party led to his resignation and possibly to the eclipse of the Liberals.

Arthur Balfour, 1848–1930 Balfour was born in Scotland and studied at Cambridge before entering Parliament in 1874. He was Lord Salisbury’s nephew and after the 1885 election, when he was elected for East Manchester, joined Salisbury’s cabinet. His first office was secretary for Scotland; in 1887, he became secretary for Ireland, to carry out Salisbury’s recipe of ‘twenty years of resolute government’, and earned himself the nickname ‘Bloody Balfour’. He then became first lord of the treasury and, from 1892–3, leader of the opposition in the Commons. When Salisbury resigned in 1902, Balfour became prime minister, but he was unable to exercise sufficient control over the tariff reformers in the party, and at the general election of 1905 the Conservative defeat was underlined by Balfour’s loss of his seat. Restored to the Commons in a by-election, he resigned the leadership of the Commons during the dispute with the House of Lords. Balfour joined the war coalition in 1915 as first lord of the admiralty, and became foreign secretary under Lloyd George (1916–19), issuing the Balfour Declaration in 1917 in which he committed the government to support for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a homeland for the Jewish people’. He was also involved in the Paris Peace Settlement in 1919. He continued to hold government office until 1929.

BIOGRAPHIES • 369

Balfour embodies the traditional structure of the Conservative Party, with his noble connections and his long periods in office. As well as giving his name to the Education Act that made secondary education a reality for many poor children, he is remembered for his commitment to firm policing in Ireland and his controversial championing of the concept of a Jewish homeland.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, 1806–59 Brunel was the son of a French civil engineer who had fled to Britain from the French Revolution. Born in Hampshire, he helped his father plan and build the first Thames tunnel (from Rotherhithe to Wapping). He designed and supervised the building of the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, although it was not completed until after his death. He also designed the Hungerford Suspension Bridge over the Thames. As engineer to the Great Western Railway company, he engineered the tunnels and bridges that took trains westwards across Britain. He was also interested in steam ships and designed the Great Britain, the first ocean-going steamer to use a screw propeller, and the Great Eastern, the largest steam ship ever built. Without Brunel’s work and pioneering of tunnelling and bridge building methods, the railway revolution would have developed much more slowly than it did.

Baroness Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1814–1906 Burdett-Coutts was a very rich woman with an acute social conscience. Her grandfather, the banker Thomas Coutts, left his fortune to her when she was only 23 years old. She became a full-time philanthropist, beginning by ‘rescuing’ street women and putting them in homes where they could learn useful and respectable trades. She also endowed churches and missions in the growing British colonies. Probably more importantly for the people of Britain, she was convinced of the need for good housing and its benefits in improving health and life in general. She built ‘model’ estates, where housing, open spaces for recreation and public buildings such as schools, libraries and meeting halls were all provided. She was created a baroness in 1871 and became a freeman of the City of London (the first woman to be so honoured) in 1872. While her practical importance is limited to the areas where her estates still stand, she provides a useful example of the ‘conscience of the rich’ and the growing awareness that poverty was a problem which could and should be solved, rather than a social disease which should be quarantined in unpleasant conditions in the hope that it would disappear.

Sir Edward Carson, 1854–1935 Born in Dublin, Carson trained as a barrister and became famous when he successfully defended the Marquis of Queensbury, father of Lord Alfred Douglas, against Oscar Wilde’s libel action. He was elected MP for Dublin University in 1892 for the Conservatives. He was knighted in 1900 and became solicitor general in the Liberal government 1900–05. He rapidly emerged as leader of the Ulster Unionists, establishing the Ulster Unionist Council and preparing the draft constitution.

370 • BIOGRAPHIES

The Ulster Volunteers, under his nominal leadership, were pledged to resist Home Rule by force if necessary. When the outbreak of the Great War postponed the implementation of Home Rule, he joined Asquith’s coalition government as attorney-general (1915), but soon preferred to work against Asquith, with Bonar Law and Lloyd George. He became a member of Lloyd George’s war cabinet. After the war, surprisingly considering his pre-war attitudes and actions, he was one of those working towards a compromise settlement in Ireland. He was awarded a life peerage in 1921 and was lord of appeal from 1921–9. It is probably true to say that no other person who incited people to civil war has ever so successfully remained a member of the establishment.

Edwin Chadwick, 1800–90 Chadwick was born in Manchester into a family which was not rich. He educated himself, working as a journalist while qualifying in law. He trained as a barrister, being called to the Bar in 1839, but never worked as a lawyer. He had been involved in the research for the Poor Law Report, which led to the Poor Law Amendment Act, and was then appointed secretary to the Poor Law commissioners, dealing with all kinds of research projects for them. He was responsible for the far-ranging Report on Public Health that led to the formation of the Board of Health in 1848 and was chairman of the board until 1854. His plans for urban cleanliness and good housing would have transformed the lives of the poor, but he was not good at inspiring other people with his vision and he upset a large number of borough councils, especially in the North of England. The Public Health Act that his report inspired was not effective. He was, however, acknowledged to be a committed public servant and was knighted in 1869. Chadwick’s key contribution was his conviction that careful research and statistical reports were the way to identify and therefore to tackle problems. He was certainly responsible for the reforms which eradicated cholera and for convincing the public, and the reluctant borough councils, that improved housing, water supply and sanitation might in the end save money by reducing epidemic disease.

Joseph Chamberlain, 1836–1914 Chamberlain was born into a prosperous business family in London and entered the family firm at the age of 16. Having worked in Birmingham, he entered local politics, becoming mayor of Birmingham in 1873. He became internationally famous as a reforming mayor by taking advantage of the new legislation, which allowed local improvements, and it was an obvious step from this to becoming a Liberal MP for Birmingham in 1876. Chamberlain served as president of the Board of Trade in Gladstone’s reforming ministry of 1880–5. The issue of Irish Home Rule, however, went against his commitment to the concept of the British Empire, and he led the rebellion of the Liberal Unionists, becoming their leader in the House of Commons. Salisbury’s ministry of 1895 was effectively a coalition of Unionists and Conservatives, and Chamberlain became colonial secretary. He worked to achieve imperial expansion and consolidation, and it is probable that he knew of the Jameson Raid, although a parliamentary inquiry cleared him of involvement.

BIOGRAPHIES • 371

His failure to reach agreement with the Boers effectively led to war. After the end of the Boer War, Chamberlain concluded that the Empire could best be protected by ‘imperial preference’ tariffs. In 1903 he returned to the back benches to campaign with the Tariff Reform League, but, far from convincing the electorate, he split the Conservative and Unionist Parties and ensured the Liberal landslide of 1905. After a stroke in 1906, Chamberlain withdrew from public life, although his sons, Austen and Neville, both entered politics and held office in the Conservative Party. Chamberlain’s career is remarkable. First, because he successfully made the difficult leap from local to national politics, but, above all, because he is unique in having brought about serious splits in the two main political parties of his day. The Liberals took years to recover from the schism over Home Rule, and the Conservatives did not form a government for 17 years after the disagreements over tariff reform.

Montagu William Lowry Corry, 1st Baron Rowton, 1838–1903 Corry came from a family of Irish nobility and his grandfather had been first lord of the admiralty. He was called to the Bar in 1863, but his importance lies in the period he spent as Disraeli’s private secretary and confidant from 1866 to the end of Disraeli’s life in 1881. He was involved in many of the more controversial events of Disraeli’s career: it was he who went to Rothschild’s Bank in 1875 to ask for a loan of £4 million, sanctioned by the cabinet but not by Parliament, in order to purchase the Suez Canal shares. After the death of Disraeli’s much-loved wife, Corry was particularly supportive. He became the 1st Baron Rowton in 1880, on Disraeli’s recommendation. When Disraeli died, Corry became particularly interested in the housing of the poor, and the first homes of his Rowton Foundation opened in 1892. Corry’s importance to Disraeli has a modern ring to it, echoing the role of advisers and assistants outside the political process which is a subject of debate today.

Richard Assheton Cross, 1st Viscount Cross, 1823–1914 Richard Cross was born in Lancashire and educated at Rugby School and Cambridge, where he both rowed in the Trinity College boat and became president of the Union. He was called to the Bar, like his father and grandfather before him, and worked in the Northern Circuit where his family was well known. In 1857, he was elected MP for Preston, as a Conservative but with the instruction from his supporters that he should not join the Carlton Club but should think for himself. Between 1862 and 1868 he gave up his legal practice and his seat in Parliament to help in the running of his father-in-law’s bank – Parr’s Bank in Warrington. In these years, he played a major part in local government in his area. His return to Parliament in 1868 was a sensational one, as he won more votes than Gladstone in the constituency of south west Lancashire. When the Conservatives were returned in 1874, Cross became home secretary, although he had no previous ministerial office experience. It is clear that Cross was almost solely responsible for the great number of important social reforms of Disraeli’s ministry. Some of the acts were based on research done by earlier royal commissions, but others

372 • BIOGRAPHIES

were new and were the product of Cross and his department. It is the more remarkable that so much legislation was achieved, since Cross was by no means a charismatic speaker and his speeches were said to resemble reports at a business meeting. The rise of Randolph Churchill ensured that Cross would be moved from the Home Office in 1886 and he became a peer and was moved to the India Office. In Salisbury’s second ministry he became Lord Privy Seal and continued to hold ministerial office until 1902, remaining an MP until his death in 1914. Cross was also a fellow of the Royal Society and a friend of Queen Victoria. Cross’s career demonstrates that a detailed knowledge of local government, and a painstaking and thorough understanding of social problems, can provide a sound basis both for successful legislation and for a successful political career. He was perhaps fortunate to have served a prime minister who was prepared to trust the men he appointed and, having delegated responsibility, to support their plans both in cabinet and in Parliament.

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, 1804–81 Disraeli’s background was far from typical for a British politician in the nineteenth century. His grandfather had migrated from Venice, and his father decided only in 1817 to convert from Judaism and to have his son baptised as a way to ensure his admission to the ‘best’ schools and careers. He was articled as a lawyer in 1821, but by then he had already had some fiction published and was determined to make his living as a writer and journalist. Although his attempt with the publisher John Murray to establish a daily newspaper in competition with The Times was an expensive failure, his first novel, published when he was only 22, was a success. Throughout his life he continued to write novels and biographies, his last novel, Endymion, being published in 1880. His political career was at first less successful. He stood as an Independent in Wycombe in 1832 and lost; he lost again in 1835, joined the Conservative Party and was again defeated. Only in 1837 was he successfully elected Conservative member for Maidstone. His first tenure of office as chancellor of the exchequer in 1852 was cut short by the defeat of the Ministry, as was his next in 1858–9. Again chancellor of the exchequer in 1866, he saw through the controversial Parliamentary Reform Act in the Commons; but his appointment as prime minister in 1868 was followed rapidly by the defeat of the ministry at the general election. Only in 1874 were the Conservatives under his leadership returned at an election, and his ministry of 1874–80 was extremely successful. He made his last speech in the House of Commons in 1876, becoming the 1st earl of Beaconsfield, and he died in April 1881. The Primrose League, named for his favourite flower, became the Conservative Party’s main fund-raising body for many years after his death, with a large popular membership. Aside from his undoubted achievements as prime minister, both at home and abroad, Disraeli is significant as a man whose talent and leadership could override the prejudices of the Conservative Party and the British population as a whole. His prime ministership is also an example of the benefits of appointing able men and then leaving the detail to them, as can be seen in the career of his home secretary, Richard Cross. The fact that he was able to be a best-selling author throughout his political life is a measure of how much more relaxed the business of government was in the nineteenth century than it is today.

BIOGRAPHIES • 373

William Ewart Gladstone, 1809–98 In many ways Gladstone had a more traditional upbringing than Disraeli, having been educated at Eton and Oxford. His father was a tradesman in Liverpool and the family was a wealthy one. He was elected to Parliament as a Conservative in 1832 and held various junior posts under Peel, becoming president of the Board of Trade in 1843. His support for free trade meant that he was in the Peelite wing of the Party when it split over the repeal of the Corn Laws, and he was chancellor of the exchequer in the Liberal ministries of Aberdeen and Palmerston. In 1867 he became leader of the Liberal Party, and although he withdrew during the failure of his second Home Rule Bill, he effectively led the Party until his resignation in 1894. His nickname, the GOM (Grand Old Man), was said to have been coined in 1882 by Lord Rosebery, his successor, to mark his 50 years in Parliament and was much used by journalists. His private life has been a matter of much speculation since, as well as being happily married, he liked to ‘rescue’ prostitutes and also went in for self-flagellation, recording his feelings in his diaries. In addition, he was a successful published writer, with many works about classical history and literature as well as political pamphlets and commentaries. His achievements in politics span well over half a century and many different departments of government. The reforms of his ministries in education, social welfare, administration and electoral reform were highly significant. But his career also demonstrates how a politician can become obsessed with one particular issue, in his case, Ireland, and can measure his personal success or failure in much more narrow terms than those used by his contemporaries, or by later generations.

Keir Hardie, 1856–1915 James Keir Hardie was born in Strathclyde, Scotland, in a coal mining community. He was the illegitimate son of Mary Keir, who subsequently married David Hardie. James started work as a delivery boy aged 8 without any schooling and was the main breadwinner of the family. Hardie became a coal mine worker at the age of 11 (the minimum age for boys was 10 according to the Mines Act of 1860, but there was little enforcement). He educated himself and was instrumental in the establishment of a union at his colliery. He led the first ever strike of Lanarkshire miners in 1881 and was victimised by the mine owners for his leadership. Hardie then became a journalist, while continuing to play a part in Scottish trade unionism. In 1892, he was elected to Parliament for the East London constituency of West Ham. He stood as a Labour candidate and his election marked the start of a new era in British politics. Working men, enfranchised in 1867 and 1884, had voted for Liberal candidates, including some trade union representatives, but Hardie believed that a party focused on the needs of the working classes was essential. The Labour Leader, which he founded and edited, argued for this view and in 1893 he led a conference in Bradford of various socialist and trade union groups which formed the Independent Labour Party. Hardie was elected chairman and leader. He was closely involved in the formation of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC, 1899) and was elected as LRC MP to Merthyr Tydfil in 1900, an election which returned only two Labour MPs. At the 1906 election, this number had increased to 26 and the name was changed to the Labour Party, with Keir Hardie as the elected leader in

374 • BIOGRAPHIES

the House of Commons, a post he held until 1908. As a pacifist, he objected to Labour’s support for the Liberal government in the First World War, and he protested from the back benches until his death. Hardie’s personal life demonstrated that a man from extremely poor beginnings could become a significant national figure, and his strongly held principles helped to shape the early Labour Party. His leadership strengthened the links between the new Labour Party and the trade union movement, and ensured that important issues such as the payment of MPs were addressed by the Liberals.

Octavia Hill, 1838–1912 Hill, like Angela Burdett-Coutts, was a woman of wealth who chose to help the poor in far-sighted and useful ways. She had many friends among the intellectuals of the day, working closely on some projects with the art critic and writer John Ruskin. From 1864 onwards, she pioneered several projects to improve slum areas, especially in London, ensuring that the local people were involved in the decisions which would shape their living conditions in the future. She influenced similar developments in Europe, particularly Germany, and in the USA. In 1869, she was involved in establishing the Charity Organisation Society to channel funds into really useful projects. Perhaps her most lasting action came in 1895 when she co-founded the National Trust to safeguard places of historic interest and natural beauty. Octavia Hill’s belief in the importance of open spaces and of beauty in everyday life seems so natural now that it is hard to believe how revolutionary her ideas appeared in the mid-nineteenth century. Her influence was felt over a much wider area than the slum properties in London which she helped to improve.

George Hudson, 1800–71 Born in Yorkshire, George Hudson spent the first part of his life as a retailer (linen draper) in York. He inherited a large sum of money in 1828 and went into local politics, but it is for his involvement with the railways that he is remembered. His large investment in the North Midland Railway ensured that York became an important centre of the railways. Hudson used his wealth to buy small or struggling railway companies and soon became known as ‘the Railway King’. In the ‘Railway Mania’ which characterised the late 1840s, he overreached himself financially. He was accused of fraud and his great empire fell apart as his competitors fought over his holdings. The rest of his life was spent in quiet retirement. Hudson exemplifies the kind of reckless entrepreneurs who appear whenever there are new technologies and new ideas to exploit. In the early twenty-first century, he might have become involved with dot.com companies.

BIOGRAPHIES • 375

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl of Dwyfor, 1863–1945 Lloyd George was born in Manchester where his father was the headmaster of an elementary school. When he was 18 months old, his father died and his mother returned to Wales where her brother Richard Lloyd, a shoemaker and Baptist minister, supported her and her family. His uncle encouraged the young Lloyd George in a legal career and he qualified as a solicitor in 1884. He first came to public notice with the ‘Llanfrothen Burial Case’ when he successfully argued for the right of Nonconformists to be buried in the cemetery of the local parish church. In 1890, Lloyd George was elected to Parliament in a by-election in Caernarvon Boroughs. He was to hold the seat for 55 years, until he was made an earl shortly before his death. His position was on the radical wing of the Liberal Party, and he risked unpopularity by his public stance as a ‘Pro-Boer’, opposing the South African War. During the Liberal ministries of 1906–14, Lloyd George was at the forefront of the reform programme, first as president of the Board of Trade and then as chancellor of the exchequer. Active in the ‘battle’ with the House of Lords, Lloyd George took little interest in Ireland, or in foreign policy. As the outbreak of war approached, he was at first in favour of non-intervention, but soon changed his mind. When the government was reconstructed as a coalition in 1915, Lloyd George accepted an apparent demotion from chancellor to minister of munitions. His methods were unorthodox: he brought in managers from the business world and persuaded the trade unions to accept unorthodox labour practices. Soon, adequate munitions supplies were available. On December 5, Asquith was forced into resignation by a vocal group of Conservatives and newspaper proprietors and Lloyd George became prime minister, although most of the prominent Liberal ministers resigned with Asquith and Lloyd George’s Cabinet was made up increasingly of Conservatives. The successful conclusion of the war, in November 1918, convinced Lloyd George to continue the coalition, and the general election returned coalition (or ‘coupon’) MPs in large numbers. But Lloyd George’s cabinet was almost entirely Conservative and, despite the successful conclusion of the Paris Peace Settlement, he could not hope to hold their loyalty when he negotiated a peace deal with the Irish nationalists. In October 1922, the Conservatives withdrew from the coalition and Lloyd George resigned. The next 20 years were not successful. The split in the Liberal Party was never mended, and although he headed it from 1926 to 1931, he recognised that it would never again be a governing party. He wrote various memoirs and watched two of his children enter politics, but his personal behaviour was such that his marriage was not happy and his several illegitimate children damaged his reputation. He was invited to join the war cabinet in 1940, but declined on grounds of his age and ill health – and probably also because he knew that his presence would be unacceptable to other members of the coalition. Lloyd George’s reputation rests on his pioneering social reforms and attack on the House of Lords before the First World War, and on his determined and effective leadership from December 1916 onwards. It seems likely that Churchill, in his leadership in the Second World War, deliberately modelled himself, and his methods, on those of Lloyd George. At the same time, however, Churchill learned from Lloyd George how not to split his party, and he avoided the

376 • BIOGRAPHIES

‘back stabbing’ conduct which had ensured that the Liberals never again became the party of government. Lloyd George is also the last prime minister to remain in office despite public exposure of the scandals of his private life.

John Stuart Mill, 1806–73 Mill was a philosopher and politician. His father was an official with the East India Company, in London, and Mill was employed there too. He, like his father, was a convinced believer in utilitarianism – Jeremy Bentham’s thesis that the aim of all public actions and policies should be to achieve the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. Mill wrote for the Westminster Review and was a member of the London Debating Society. His most important work, A System of Logic, was published in 1843, and his rather better known essay, On Liberty, in 1859. Elected to Parliament in 1865, he spoke on many public issues, notably arguing in favour of women’s suffrage and improved public education. Mill was an example of the interest that the intelligentsia took in social improvement and in ensuring that sound ethical principle, rather than mere popularity, underlay government decisions.

Florence Nightingale, 1820–1910 The high point in Florence Nightingale’s life came when she was comparatively young: she was named ‘the lady of the lamp’ for her work during the Crimean War, but her influence on medical reform lasted into the twentieth century. Florence’s parents were travelling in Italy when she was born and named her for her birthplace (her older sister was named Parthenope, the Greek name for Naples, her place of birth). Brought up in England, she hoped to train as a nurse, but this was not possible in Britain, so she trained in Germany and Paris. When the Crimean War began, a family friend, Sidney Herbert, was secretary of war. He discussed with Florence the terrible conditions reported at the military hospital at Scutari, and in 1854, she led a party of 38 nurses to try to improve conditions. She may be said to have set the pattern for nursing in Britain by ordering her nurses to do nothing without the authorisation of a doctor. Her insistence on cleanliness and hygiene reduced the terrible death rate from cholera, and she became a national heroine. On her return home, she established a school for training nurses at St Thomas’ Hospital in London and was involved in committees reforming both army health reform and public health in India. Without her work, nursing in Britain might have remained a job for disreputable old women for a much longer time, rather than becoming a suitable career for young middle-class girls.

Emmeline Pankhurst, 1858–1928 Emmeline Goulden was born in Manchester and when she was still in her teens she fell in love with Richard Pankhurst, whom she married in 1879. Pankhurst was a lawyer and a radical, and

BIOGRAPHIES • 377

he drafted, among other legislation, the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and 1882. The couple were convinced of the need to enfranchise women, or at least to franchise educated women. Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women’s Franchise League in 1889, following the successful campaign to include women as voters and county councillors in the County Councils Act of 1888. Following the death of her husband in 1898, Emmeline Pankhurst and her two daughters, particularly the older, Christabel (born 1880), became ever more committed to the cause of women’s suffrage. In 1903, they founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). The Pankhursts had been confident that a Liberal government, particularly one with a substantial majority, would enact legislation to provide votes for women, and it was the failure of Asquith to do so that drove the suffragette movement into militancy. Christabel became a lieutenant in the militant campaign, though much of it was directed from the safety of Paris. Emmeline and Christabel ensured the end of suffragette militancy in 1914 and flung themselves into the war effort. After the end of the war, Emmeline travelled widely, encouraging the women’s suffrage campaign in the USA and Canada; she did not return to Britain till 1926, when she accepted nomination as a Conservative candidate for a London seat. Although she died before an election was held, the act providing women with the right to vote on equal terms with men (1928) was passed in her lifetime. Her daughter Christabel, who lived until 1958, also turned away from radical politics and spent much of the rest of her life preaching that the second coming of Christ was imminent and arguing in favour of ‘purity’ (or celibacy) for both men and women. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, as architects and organisers of the militant campaign, ensured that the question of votes for women was a key political issue in the years before the Great War. In contrast to Sylvia (see below) they believed that it was the property-owning and educated women who deserved the vote, and it was, of course, these women who had time and income to spend on theatrical demonstrations. Whether women would have gained the vote without the work of the Pankhursts is a matter for debate. In ‘face saving’ terms it was suggested by Lloyd George’s coalition that the limited franchise of 1918 was a ‘reward’ for the good behaviour of women during the war; others have seen it as a frightened attempt to prevent the re-ignition of the militant campaign.

Sylvia Pankhurst, 1882–1960

Sylvia Pankhurst, the second daughter of Dr Richard Pankhurst and Emmeline Goulden, was born in Manchester. She was very close to her father until his death in 1898 and, unlike her mother and sister, she never gave up his radical socialist beliefs. In 1900, Sylvia became a student at the Royal College of Art in Kensington, London, but gradually gave up her studies to concentrate on politics, working for the WSPU from its foundation in 1903. She was also very active in the new Labour Party and became a close friend of Keir Hardie, but her energies were mostly occupied with the militant campaign. She differed strongly from her mother and sister in her conviction that the vote must be given to working-class women and that it was a tool for social improvement, rather than merely a hobby for middle-class women. She regarded the more violent aspects of the campaign as frivolous, in the sense that these methods

378 • BIOGRAPHIES

were not open to women who had to feed their families and work long hours in factories and sweatshops. Christabel ensured that Sylvia was expelled from the WSPU, and from 1912 onwards, Sylvia concentrated on explaining women’s suffrage to the mass of the people. She edited and produced a weekly paper for working-class women called The Women’s Dreadnought. The breach between herself and her mother and sister was completed by the outbreak of war. Sylvia’s socialism meant that she was a pacifist and that she recognised that the war damaged working-class families who had little say in whether or not war should be declared. She was one of the founders of the Women’s Peace Army, an organisation that demanded a negotiated peace, and of the Anti-Conscription League, which subsequently became known as the National Council for Civil Liberties and survives to this day under the name of ‘Liberty’. Sylvia Pankhurst also supported the Russian Revolution in 1917, visiting the country and meeting Lenin. The British government, disliking the pro-Communist bias of her newspaper, imprisoned her for five months under the Defence of the Realm Act. Sylvia’s socialist belief extended into her private life and she refused to marry, or take the name of her lover, the father of the son she had in 1927. She remained active in left-wing politics all her life, supporting the republican government in Spain in the 1930s and helping Jewish refugees from Germany. She was appalled at the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, and it was in Ethiopia, working in humanitarian aid projects, that she spent the remaining 15 years of her life after the end of the Second World War. Sylvia Pankhurst’s life is a reminder that the suffragette movement was not merely a middle-class activity featuring women with time on their hands and the financial security to campaign. Sylvia saw it as part of the wider struggle for civil rights and as a way of ensuring that Parliament turned its attention to the social and economic problems of the poorest classes; she saw her campaign for votes for women as one element in the struggle to improve the conditions of all people.

Charles Stewart Parnell, 1846–91 Parnell was born into an Anglo-Irish protestant family in County Wicklow. He went to the University of Cambridge and entered Parliament as MP for County Meath in 1875. By 1877, he had replaced Isaac Butt as the leader of the Home Rule movement and used obstructive tactics with great skill to ensure that the issues which concerned Ireland remained at the forefront of Commons business. In 1878, he was elected president of the Irish Land League and organised the campaign of boycotting. The violence in Ireland led to his arrest in 1881, but after discussions with Gladstone he was released. Although he condemned the Phoenix Park murders of 1882, there were press reports that he had been involved with the Invincibles. He won a libel action in 1887 against The Times, which had published the accusations. His career was destroyed, however, when he was cited as co-respondent in the divorce case of Captain Terence O’Shea. Catherine O’Shea had had a long-standing relationship with Parnell, but, in 1890, her husband decided he would no longer ignore it. The scandal ruined Parnell, whose relationship with the Catholic Church was in any case less than warm. Parnell died in 1891, his health damaged by the campaigning he had undertaken to try to restore his standing in Ireland.

BIOGRAPHIES • 379

Parnell had demonstrated the efficacy of disruptive tactics in the Commons and had brought together the Land Campaign and the Home Rule movement, a combination which was to dominate Irish politics into the twentieth century.

William Perkin, 1838–1907 Perkin was born in London and studied at the Royal College of Chemistry under the great German scientist August von Hoffmann. As a student, he set up a laboratory at home for his own experiments. In trying to synthesise quinine, he made some experiments with aniline, a by-product in the making of coal tar. The black sludge he created, when mixed with alcohol, produced a purple dye which did not fade. During the 1850s, Perkin found textile manufacturers prepared to test and use his product. In 1857, Perkin opened a factory to produce the dye, solving the problems inherent in the mass production of chemical materials such as aniline and nitrobenzene. In a period when the existing vegetable dyes faded very quickly, ‘mauve’ became all the rage. According to the humorous magazine Punch, London policemen could be heard telling people to ‘mauve along there, please’. The new one penny stamp also used Perkin’s mauve. By 1874, when he sold his factory, Perkin was a very rich man. He had shown that it was possible to make a business (and a fortune) from organic chemistry. British companies were not interested, however, and the initiative passed to Germany, where companies adopted these new technologies and set about developing new colours with enthusiasm. Perkin was the first man to make the step from academic science to profitable business. Not only did he revolutionise the dye industry and hence the textile industries, but he was also the founder of the chemical industries of which the great pharmaceutical companies are the modern manifestation.

Cecil Rhodes, 1853–1902 Rhodes was the son of a clergyman in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire. At the age of 17 he was sent to South Africa for his health to his brother’s cotton farm in Natal. The year after his arrival, 1871, he and his brother staked a claim in the diamond fields of Griqualand. He returned to England in 1873 and entered Oxford, but he regularly returned to South Africa and so did not graduate until 1881, by which time he and his partners had formed the de Beers Mining Company and he was a very rich man. Rhodes was convinced that Britain should rule the whole of Southern Africa and had a vision of British domination ‘from the Cape to Cairo’. His political and commercial ambitions coincided in this vision. From 1881 until the end of his life, Rhodes was a member of the Parliament of Cape Colony. He was determined to prevent the northward expansion of the Boer Republics, and in 1885, Britain established a protectorate over Bechuanaland, while in 1888 Lobengula, the Ndebele (Matabele) ruler, was persuaded to agree to Rhodes’s company mining for minerals in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. The British South Africa Company (1889) soon established complete control of the territory. By 1888, the de Beers Consolidated Mining Company had a monopoly of the Kimberley diamond production.

380 • BIOGRAPHIES

Rhodes became Prime Minister of Cape Colony in 1890. He ensured that few Africans had the vote by restricting the franchise to the literate. He was forced, in 1896, to resign as prime minister following the Jameson Raid, which he had clearly supported. In 1897, a committee of the British House of Commons found him guilty of breaches of duty as prime minister and as administrator of the British South Africa Company, and he turned his attention to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He fought in the Boer War, commanding the garrison during the siege of Kimberley, and lived to see the annexation of the Boer Republics, which had always been one of his ambitions. A part of his large fortune was spent on endowing scholarships for young men from the Empire to study at Oxford. Rhodes is a key figure in the British expansion in Africa and is an example of how commercial considerations and the personal annexations of individuals encouraged the British government to take over substantial amounts of territory. His career and personality provide a real insight into British imperialism.

Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquis of Salisbury, 1830–1903 A member of one of the greatest political families in Britain, Salisbury was educated at Eton and Oxford and sat in the House of Commons as a Conservative from 1853–65. From then on, he sat in the Lords, first as Viscount Cranborne and then, from 1868 onwards, as marquis of Salisbury. His first ministerial appointment, however, was not until 1866, when he became secretary for India. In 1878, he became foreign secretary and, on Disraeli’s death, became leader of the Conservatives. He had three terms of office as prime minister, and in each he took the position of foreign secretary as well. He resigned as foreign secretary in 1900, but remained prime minister until 1902. The career of Salisbury has been seen as the Conservative Party reverting to its own traditions after the flamboyant career of Disraeli, although he was to be the last noble to become prime minister of Britain. His interest in foreign policy was over-arching, and he delegated other issues to ministers without taking any real interest in what they proposed.

John Snow, 1813–58 Snow was a Yorkshireman and as a medical student in 1831 had seen the devastating effects of the great cholera epidemic in a colliery village. From 1836, he practised as a doctor in the middle of London and researched the causes of cholera. Having watched the next outbreak, in 1848, he concluded in a paper published in 1849 that the disease spread through water contaminated with sewage rather than through poison in the air (miasma) or by touch (contagion). He showed that people who collected their water from the Thames downstream from sewage outlets were more likely to become infected with cholera than people whose water came from upstream of the discharge. In his own area there were cesspits under the privies, which seeped into the underwater streams feeding the wells and public pumps. His conclusive proof came during the virulent epidemic of 1854. Convinced that one of the street pumps in Soho was contaminated, he persuaded

BIOGRAPHIES • 381

the authorities to remove the pump handle, forcing the householders to go to a different pump for their water. The epidemic stopped immediately. Snow’s success brought him fame and status. He was also an anaesthetist, and it was he who administered chloroform to Queen Victoria for the births of her last two children. He never married and continued to deal with his poor patients throughout his life. Snow’s importance lies not just in his achievement in demonstrating the cause of cholera, so that the disease could be effectively eliminated, but in the methods he used. Detailed research into and statistical evaluation of epidemics and public health, known as ‘epidemiology’, seem so obvious to modern students that it is hard to imagine how revolutionary Snow’s work was.

Sidney Webb, 1859–1947, and Beatrice Webb, 1858–1943 Sidney Webb was born in London where his family was involved in radical politics. He went to work as a clerk in 1895 and gained his education through evening classes, taking an external law degree from London University and being called to the Bar in 1885. Beatrice Webb was born into a prosperous family in Gloucestershire, taking an interest in local issues of poverty and working conditions. She moved to London and, like Sidney Webb, was a founding member of the Fabian Society in 1884. Her first book, The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain, was published in 1889. The Webbs’ marriage in 1892 marked the formal beginning of a partnership committed to the twin causes of social reform and education. Together they founded the London School of Economics (LSE), which Beatrice referred to as their ‘child’ (they had no others). While Sidney was professor of public administration at LSE for 15 years from 1912, they tended to leave the running of the institution to the appointed directors. They continued to publish, both individually and together. Both also played a part in the setting up of the Labour Party, although Sidney did not become an MP until after the First World War. The Fabian commitment to gradualism in tackling the problems of poverty meant that both were involved in the social reforms of the Liberal ministry (1905–14). Beatrice Webb was a member of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law and she and her husband wrote the Commission’s Minority Report, which recommended dealing with poverty through government action. It seems possible that some of their recommendations would have been implemented had it not been for the war. The Webbs are remarkable as a husband and wife team which, for a considerable period, influenced the formation both of government policy and of the Labour Party. Their kind of gradualism ensured that the British Labour Party was never a socialist or revolutionary movement in the pattern of left-wing parties on the continent of Europe.

382 • BIOGRAPHIES

Cardinal Wiseman, 1802–65 Nicholas Wiseman was Irish and, like many Irish boys of his time, destined for the Catholic Church by his parents. He attended the English College in Rome and was ordained at the age of 23. He became Rector (Head) of the College in 1828. He moved to Britain in 1840, when he was appointed president of Oscott College in Birmingham. He became vicar apostolic of the London area in 1847, at a time when conversions from Anglicanism were a matter of concern to the established Church of England. Pope Pius IX precipitated Wiseman into controversy when he appointed him archbishop of Westminster and raised him to the cardinalate in 1850. The British government reacted with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act (1851), which declared illegal the granting of church titles in Britain by foreign authorities, but the appointment was not undone. Wiseman remained archbishop until his death, although the longevity of Pius IX meant that he was never involved in the election of a pope. Wiseman was a scholarly and moderate man, and his work marked the beginning of a recognition that Catholicism had a significant role to play in Britain.

Glossary of Key Terms

absolutism A political system in which the ruler, whether monarch or dictator, has all the power. Act of Union In 1800, in response to the rebellion of the United Irishmen, the British Parliament abolished the separate Irish Parliament and instead made provision for Ireland to have 100 MPs and 28 Lords in the British Parliament. As well as commercial concessions and the right to maintain their own law courts, the Irish had been promised Catholic emancipation, but this was in fact delayed until 1828. Anglican A member of the Established Church of England. aniline One of the by-products in the manufacture of coal tar; it became the key ingredient in chemical as opposed to vegetable dyes. annexation The taking over of territory against the wishes of its people or its rulers. arbitration: Solution of a problem or issue by a third party, or institution not concerned in the original dispute. apothecary A person who dispenses drugs and other pharmaceutical and medical products. back bencher MP who is not a member of the government or of the shadow cabinet, and therefore does not sit on the front bench on either side of the House of Commons. backwoodsman A member of the House of Lords who seldom attends the House. ballot The paper on which a vote is recorded and the system of voting in writing rather than by a show of hands or other public indication. bastard The child of parents who are not married to each other. The term used to have a literal meaning with no abusive implication. blackleg A worker who continues to work during a strike, or who accepts employment to replace a striking worker. Bolsheviks The Communists of Russia; taking their name (which means ‘the majority’) from a split in the Party in its early days.

384 • GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

boycotting The Land League’s campaign to prevent eviction took the name of Lord Erne’s agent, Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott; Parnell’s idea was that people who evicted tenants for nonpayment of rent, as well as people who took up the tenancies, should be ignored and isolated by the people among whom they lived. budget The estimate of the British government’s plans for revenue and expenditure for the forthcoming year. It is usually presented by the chancellor of the exchequer to the House of Commons for approval. It is debated by both houses, but traditionally was not opposed by the House of Lords. cartel An alliance or agreement between different companies, to control production or to fix prices; they are also called ‘trusts’. cesspit A pit or container in which human effluent is collected. cholera A disease, spread by contaminated water, causing acute diarrhoea, and thus life threatening dehydration. civil service The name given in Britain to the officials who do the day-to-day work of government. Appointed rather than elected, they remain in office regardless of the outcome of elections or of the party in power and are ‘servants’ of the people rather than of the politicians. coal gas A gas produced by distilling coal and used for heating and lighting in the nineteenth century. Its disadvantage is that it contains carbon monoxide and so is toxic. coaling The word used for refuelling coal driven ships; Britain needed to have coaling stations around the world to service its navy. combing A process to straighten the fibres in cotton or wool before it can be further processed and spun. This was done by hand until the development of combing machinery in the late eighteenth century. conscription Calling citizens to do compulsory military or other war work. consensus A level of agreement between two groups or parties which is ‘understood’ rather than overt. consort Literally (as a verb) meaning ‘to associate or keep company with someone’, the noun is the term used for the spouse of a reigning king or queen. coup d’état A forcible seizure of power, or violent and illegal take-over. death rate A way of describing the number of deaths in any population: usually, it is the number of deaths per 1,000 people in any year.

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS • 385

depression When used in economics, a depression is a period when levels of production, investment, trade and prices all go down. A depression therefore leads to unemployment which, by depressing demand and the markets, leads to further falls in production and in investment. diocese The area under the authority of a bishop. disestablishment Removing the ‘established’ or official status of an institution, particularly the Church. divorce In the nineteenth century, divorce was almost impossible, and was regarded as a disgrace. The only reasons for which a divorce could be given were: the insanity of one of the couple; cruelty of one to the other; and adultery. In case of adultery, the co-respondent, or third party, was usually identified in court. dominion status Effective self-government while still recognising the monarch of Britain as the head of state. ecclesiastical Derived from the Greek word for an assembly or gathering, the word has come to mean ‘relating to the church’. emancipation Achieving freedom from some kind of legal limitation. epidemiology Originally, the scientific study of epidemics, this term is also applied to the statistical study of other public health issues, such as comparative nutrition and growth in children. epidemic An outbreak of disease which attacks a large number of people at a particular time. Established Church The church authorised by law and encompassing the sovereign. In England, Ireland and Wales at this time, it was the term used for the Anglican Church, although in Scotland, the Presbyterian Church was the established church. Etonian Someone who attends the famous private school in Windsor, Eton. eviction Forcible removal from a place of residence. Fenians Also known as the Irish Brotherhood and named after the legendary heroes of Ireland. They were founded in the USA in 1858 by James Stephens and attempted violent action against British rule in Ireland during the 1860s. They failed, however, to win the support of the Catholic Church. franchise The right to vote. free trade Government policy rejecting the need for tariffs of any kind, on the grounds that these stifled trade and distorted the normal workings of the market.

386 • GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

gauge Distance between two wheels on an axle; therefore, in railway terms, the distance between the two rails. The fact that the British gauge was adopted world-wide obviously benefited British manufacturers of rolling stock. gradualism A policy of making changes little by little rather than in a radical or revolutionary way (Fabius avoided direct battle with the Carthaginians until their supplies were depleted, and thus the gradualist Fabians took his name). grants-in-aid The term used for grants of money from central revenue to support and help pay for the work of local authorities, especially when a statute required them to adopt a policy which their local ratepayers might not favour. gross national product (GNP) An economic measure of the total value of all goods and services produced by a nation in a year. Hansard The official record of all that occurs in the Houses of Parliament; it takes its name from the family who compiled the reports from the mid-eighteenth century until 1889, when the responsibility for verbatim reporting was taken over by a government agency. harrow Agricultural process (or piece of equipment for the process) to level the soil and break up large clods of earth. hustings The meetings at which politicians and candidates for Parliament put forward their arguments and attempt to persuade people to vote for them. In the years before 1872, the hustings were an essential part of the election, even where the seat was uncontested, since it was at the hustings that the votes were actually cast. imperial Of, or to do with, the Empire. indenture A contract of employment which binds the worker to certain conditions. internment Imprisonment without charge or trial. interventionist Someone who advocates interfering or intervening in the affairs of others, particularly foreign states. jingoism: a chauvinistic and aggressive form of patriotism, deriving its name from a musical hall song of the 1870s: ‘Oh, we don’t want to fight, but by jingo if we do . . .’ khaki The brownish colour adopted for British army uniforms when it was realised that the traditional red exposed soldiers to danger in the dry grasslands of South Africa, or in the mud of any battlefield. lascar From the Urdu word for a soldier. This was one of the words used to describe the native sailors who worked for the East India Company. litigation The process of fighting a civil case in the law courts.

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS • 387

lockout When employers refuse to allow workers to go to work (and therefore withhold their wages) unless they accept certain conditions. mandate Authority or permission for some action given by the person or group which has control of the issue. materiel French word used to describe war supplies of various different kinds. methane The main constituent of ‘natural’ gas, used for heating; it is colourless and odourless. militia A body of men who are trained to fight, but remain civilians, being called upon to fight only in emergency. The funding of the militia was often a matter of controversy. mutiny Rebellion against the constituted authorities of members of the armed forces. nationalisation, nationalised The putting of industries, or resources, under state control. During the First World War, this was done to enhance efficiency, but it is a political policy of socialist parties. Non-Conformist A Christian who does not subscribe to the views of the Established Anglican Church; another term for a dissenter. outdoor relief The provision of assistance for the poor without the requirement that they should enter the workhouse (the so-called ‘workhouse test’). patent medicine A medicine available ‘over the counter’ without a prescription; protected by a patent, in the nineteenth century they had the reputation of being ineffective and even fraudulent in the claims made about them, until legislation began to regulate them. philanthropist A person, often wealthy, committed to trying to improve the lot of less fortunate people. The word comes from the Greek words for ‘love’ and ‘human’. picketing Demonstrating to persuade workers to join a strike, or to refuse to go to work. Pickets usually operate at the entrance to the place of work, in the hope of turning their co-workers away from work, but they also attempt to put their point of view over to the public. pig iron Crude iron produced from a blast furnace, before further processing into wrought iron, steel etc. It gets its name from the fact that it is poured from the furnace into moulds like piglets suckling from their mother. pitmen Another word for coal miners, since coal mines are often called ‘pits’, by the people who work in them. ‘pocket’ borough An electoral town constituency which is under the control of one person or interest, for example, because there is one main employer, or because one landlord controls most of the housing and can therefore dictate how votes are cast.

388 • GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

plural voting The (legal) casting of more than one vote, according to different franchise qualifications. prairies The huge treeless grassy plains of the central USA which, in the nineteenth century, were increasingly being turned to arable farming. prerogative An exclusive right or privilege held by some person or group because of their office (from the Latin, which means that they have the right before they (or without having to) ask for it). private soldier A soldier who is not an officer. privy A lavatory, especially one in its own shed or outhouse rather than being in the house. proletarian Wage earner or member of the ‘working classes’. Mainly used in Marxist writings, the word originally comes from the Roman Empire, where it meant a man whose only contribution to the state was to produce children (proles = offspring). protection Government policy favouring the use of import tariffs to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Protection may also involve the use of export tariffs to prevent the exportation of key materials. radical Originally meaning ‘fundamental’ or ‘from the base’. By the nineteenth century the word was used to denote people who wanted fundamental changes to the way in which society, politics and the economy were run rates Local taxation, assessed on the value of the property occupied by the payer. remand The status of people being held in prison before any offence has been proved against them. restrictive practices Systems or methods of trade or production aimed to benefit one group at the expense of the public interest or the interests of other groups. retrenchment The policy of cutting back on expenditure in order to improve the financial situation and to reduce taxation. Riot Act Dating from 1715, this law made it a felony for 12 or more people assembled together to refuse to disperse when ordered to by the local authority. Thus, once the Riot Act was read out, a gathering of people was declared to be a riot and could be dispersed by force. rolling stock All the vehicles used on the railways, including locomotive engines, freight and passenger wagons, coal tenders. ‘rotten’ borough A town constituency where so few people live that it is easy to determine the outcome of an election by bribery or threats.

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS • 389

seamstress Woman who makes clothes by hand or does other sewing for a living. seminary Training college for Roman Catholic priests. sepoy An Indian soldier in the service of the British. Sinn Féin ‘Ourselves alone’ in Gaelic. An Irish republican party founded in 1902 by Arthur Griffith and at first non-violent; the influence of James Connolly made it more militant and, after some members were involved in the 1916 Easter Rising, it adopted the armed struggle as the way of achieving an independent republic for the whole of Ireland. spindle Thin rod used to collect the spun thread on a spinning machine. straits A narrow neck of water connecting two larger bodies of water, for example, the channel linking the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. sweat shop An unregulated place of work where conditions are bad and wages poor. syndicalism The theory, expressed by Trade Union movements in France and Germany, that the means of production and supply should be seized by the workers by such revolutionary means as industrial strikes. tariffs Taxes levied (usually) on imports for the purposes of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition. Tariffs may also be used to prevent the exportation of essential commodities. threshing To separate grain from the stalks and husks of the plant. Done by hand until the nineteenth-century invention of threshing machines, it was one of the jobs which kept agricultural workers employed once the harvest was in. The invention of threshing machines therefore had an adverse impact on rural employment. Tsarist Related to the absolutism rule of the Emperor (Tsar) of Russia. veto The power to prevent decision or action proposed by others. viceroy A person ruling on behalf of a monarch, usually in some distant province or territory.

Bibliography and Suggestions for Further Reading

These suggestions are far from comprehensive. Every book in this list also contains a further bibliography, to guide you further. But these have been useful in the writing of this book, and are, in the main, still available in bookshops and libraries.

The Conservatives and their leaders Blake, R., The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1966 Blake, R., The Unknown Prime Minister: The Life and Times of Andrew Bonar Law, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1955 Blake, R., Disraeli, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1996 Blake, R. and Cecil, H. (eds), Salisbury: The Man and his Policies, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London 1987 Boyd, C.W. (ed.), Mr Chamberlain’s Speeches, Constable & Co., London, 1914 Buckle, G., The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, John Murray, London, 1920, vol 5. Clayden, P.W., England under Lord Beaconsfield, C. Kegan Paul, London 1880, reprinted London, 1971 Coleman, Bruce, Conservatism and the Conservative Party in Nineteenth Century Britain, Edward Arnold, London, 1988 Dugdale, B.E.C., Arthur James Balfour, First Earl of Balfour, Hutchinson, London, 1936 Ghosh, P.R., Style and Substance in Disraelian Social Reform, in P.J. Waller (ed.), Politics and Social Change in Modern Britain, Harvester, Brighton, 1987 Gilmour, Sir Ian, Inside Right, Quartet Books, London, 1978 Smith, Jeremy, The Taming of Democracy; The Conservative Party 1880–1924, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1997 Smith, P. (ed.), Lord Salisbury and Politics: A Selection of his articles in the ‘Quarterly Review’, 1860–1883, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and London, 1972 Southgate, D. (ed.), The Conservative Leadership 1832–1932, Macmillan, London, 1974 Stewart, R., The Foundations of the Conservative Party 1830–1867, Macmillan, London, 1978 Vincent, J.R., Disraeli, OUP, Oxford, 1990 Vincent, J.R. (ed.), Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative Party, Harvester Press, Hassocks, 1978 Walton, John K., Disraeli, Routledge, London, 1990

The Liberals and their leaders Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Constable & Co., London, 1961 Magnus, P., Gladstone, an Autobiography, John Murray, London, 1954

BIBLIOGRAPHY • 391

Matthew, Colin, Gladstone 1809–1898, OUP, Oxford, 1997 Parry, Jonathan, The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1993

Labour and working-class politics Adelman, Paul, The Rise of the Labour Party 1880–1945, Longman, London, 1986 Bealey, Frank and Pelling, Henry, Labour and Politics, 1900–1906, Macmillan, London, 1958 Epstein, James and Thompson, Dorothy (eds), The Chartist Experience: Studies in Working Class Radicalism 1830–1860, Macmillan, London, 1982 Kirk, Neville, Change, Continuity and Class, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998 Pelling, Henry, The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880–1900, OUP, Oxford, 1965 Stedman Jones, Gareth, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History 1832–1982, CUP, Cambridge, 1983 Webb, Beatrice, My Apprenticeship, Longman, London, 1950

The monarchy and Queen Victoria Hardie, F., The Political Influence of Queen Victoria 1861–1901, Frank Cass & Co., London, 1963 Woodham Smith, Cecil, Queen Victoria, Her Life and Times 1819–1861, Constable & Co., London, 1972

Women Llewelyn Davies, Margaret (ed.), Maternity, Letters from Working Women, 1915, republished Virago, London 1984, Pugh, Martin, Votes for Women in Britain 1867–1928, Historical Association Publications, London, 1997 Roberts, Elizabeth, Women’s Work 1840–1940, Macmillan, London, 1988

Political developments generally Beales, D.E.D., From Castlereagh to Gladstone 1815–1885, Nelson, London, 1969 Bentley, M., Politics without Democracy 1815–1914, Fontana, London, 1984 Briggs, Asa, The Age of Improvement, Longman, Green and Co., London, 1959 Evans, Eric J., The Forging of the Modern State, Longman, London, 1983 Gash, N., Aristocracy and People 1815–1865, Edward Arnold, London, 1979 Green, H.H., An Age of Transition, British Politics 1880–1914, Edinbugh University Press, Edinburgh, 1997 Hanham, C.H.J., The Reform(ed) Electoral System in Great Britain 1832–1914, Historical Association, London, 1968 Kitson Clark, G., The Making of Victorian England, Methuen, London, 1962

392 • BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lloyd, T., The General Election of 1880, OUP, Oxford, 1968 McCord, Norman, British History 1815–1906, OUP, Oxford, 1991 Pearce, Robert and Stearn, Roger, Government and Reform in Britain 1815–1918, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1994 Royle, Edward, Radical Politics 1790–1900, Religion and Unbelief, Longman, London, 1971 Walker, Martin, Daily Sketches, Paladin, London, 1978 Young, G.M. and Handcock, W.D. (eds), English Historical Documents 1833–1874, Eyre & Spottiswood, London, 1956 Young, G.M., Victorian England, Portrait of an Age, OUP, Oxford, 1936

Economic and social topics Body, Geoffrey, Great Railway Battles, Link Publishing, Kettering 1994 Chapple, Phil, The Industrialisation of Britain, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1999 Gatrell, V.A.C., The Hanging Execution and the English People 1770–1868, OUP, Oxford, 1994 Hadfield, Charles, The Canal Age, Pan, London, 1968 Halliday, Stephen, The Great Stink of London, Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, Sutton Publishing, Stroud, 1999 Lawrence, Christopher, Medicine in the Making of Modern Britain 1700–1920, Routledge, London, 1994 Longmate, Norman, Alive and Well, Allen & Unwin, Penguin, London, 1970 Murray, Peter, Poverty and Welfare 1830–1914, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1999 Saul, S.B., The Myth of the Great Depression, Macmillan, London, 1969

Ireland Mokyr, Joel, Why Ireland Starved, HarperCollins, London, 1982 Smith, Jeremy, Britain and Ireland, From Home Rule to Independence, Longman, London, 2000 Vaughan, W.E.A. (ed.), A New History of Ireland: Ireland Under the Union I 1801–1870, OUP, Oxford, 1989, vol. 5

Foreign and Imperial Affairs Eldridge, C., England’s Mission: The Imperial Idea in the Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1868–1880, Macmillan, London, 1973 Goodlad, Graham D., British Foreign and Imperial Policy 1865–1919, Routledge, London, 2000 James, Lawrence, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India, Little, Brown, London, 1997 Lowe, John, Britain and Foreign Affairs 1815–1885, Routledge, London, 1998 Seaman, L.C.B., From Vienna to Versailles, Methuen & Co., London, 1955

Index

Aberdeen, Lord 4, 9,10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 34, 35, 43, 182, 219, 373 Abyssinia see Ethiopia Afghanistan 39, 157, 163, 168, 177, 193, 202, 315 Africa 5, 38, 39, 61, 66, 67, 88, 89, 91, 92, 101,156, 157, 161, 163, 168, 171, 179, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 199, 201, 203, 205, 214, 232, 256, 264, 265, 269, 270, 274, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 301, 302, 305, 312, 319, 333, 344, 364, 377, 379, 380, 386 Agadir 305, 332 agriculture 60, 65, 67, 68, 69, 76, 79, 84, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 102, 104, 105, 132, 210, 215, 218, 232, 234, 260, 261, 264, 270, 274, 308, 337, 342, 362, 364, 388 aircraft production 339, 342, 345 Aitken, Max, see Beaverbrook, Lord Alabama incident 19, 157, 160, 197 Albert, Prince 2, 8, 9, 12, 20, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 46, 47, 52, 123, 271, 361, 367 Alexander II, Tsar of Russia 51 Algeciras Conference 268, 332 Alsace-Lorraine 87, 238, 335, 336, 344 America, Americans see United States of America Anglican see Church of England Anti-Conscription League 312, 318, 340, 354, 378 army 15, 20, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 51, 88, 149, 157, 158, 168, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183, 191, 200, 202, 214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 233, 234, 237, 240, 241, 250, 260, 271, 272, 280, 281, 286, 287, 319, 333, 334, 337, 338, 343, 363, 376, 386 Arrow incident 8, 9, 17, 20, 40, 41 Asquith, Herbert Henry 215, 229, 231, 234, 236, 248, 249, 250, 251, 300, 304, 305, 309, 310, 312, 315, 318, 320, 324, 325, 329, 340, 341, 342, 343, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 354, 364, 367, 368, 370, 375, 377 Australia, Australians 39, 61, 69, 80, 87, 88, 170, 177, 205, 214, 275, 279, 319

Austria, Austria-Hungary 16, 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 87, 157, 163, 165, 171, 186, 187 192, 200, 202, 203, 239, 273, 281, 282, 333, 334, 335, 336, 345 Balaclava 35, 57 Balfour, Arthur 111, 129, 151, 235, 257, 259, 263, 264, 269, 288, 293, 297, 298, 300, 305, 309, 319, 322, 347, 368 Balkans 17, 18, 34, 35, 87, 156, 157, 163, 165, 184, 185–7, 192, 198, 201, 203, 211, 272, 280, 318, 334–6 Balmoral Castle 12, 33, 50 Bank Charter Act 1844 70 banking 60, 61, 66, 70, 76, 101, 104, 167 Bank Holidays Act 1871 76 Beaverbrook, Lord 341, 342, 343 Belgium 42, 62, 73, 86, 101, 102, 215, 284, 285, 320, 333, 335, 344 Berlin, Congress of, 1878 157, 165, 184, 185–7, 190! 198, 200, 203 Bessemer 65 bicycle 61, 292, 294 Bismarck, Count Otto von 43, 51, 86, 161, 165, 166, 168, 200, 267, 285 Black Sea 33, 34, 35, 41, 52, 157, 160, 185, 186 Board of Trade 73, 113, 131, 142, 167, 309, 313, 331, 370, 373, 375 Boers, Boer War 62, 115, 126, 138, 157, 179, 188, 189, 193, 194, 256, 257, 263–5, 267, 270, 274, 275, 283, 284, 285–8, 289, 290, 294, 295, 296, 301–2, 306, 318, 334, 337, 364, 368, 371, 379–80 Bonar Law, Andrew 215, 233, 234, 237, 247, 249, 250, 251, 318, 370, Bosnia 163, 165, 186, 335 Brest Litovsk, Treaty of, 1918 321, 344 brickmaking 75, 81,123 Bright, John 11, 167, 168 British East India Company 18, 36, 37, 41, 177, 193, 386

394 • INDEX budget 10, 11, 15, 21, 141, 171, 196, 249, 304, 305, 306–8, 321–323, 349, 351, 384 Bulgaria 34, 163–5, 171, 185–187, 199, 201, 202, 281 Burdett-Coutts, Angela 134, 369, 374 Canada 5, 19, 39, 87, 88, 90, 94, 177, 205, 220, 222, 230, 252, 275, 279, 282, 377 canals 5, 60, 61, 62, 71–3, 74–6, 82, 88, 99, 101, 106, 226, 364 Cardwell, Edward 61, 63, 157, 158, 177–9 Carson, Sir Edward 208, 214, 231, 234–7, 241, 248, 249, 250, 251, 369–70 ‘Cat and Mouse’ Act, 1911 305, 311, 353, 354 census 82, 83, 84, 96, 101, 107, 181, 218, 220, 338, 364 Chadwick, Edwin 112, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 370 Chamberlain, Joseph 96, 112, 137, 180, 269, 286, 289, 291, 293, 295, 296, 352, 370–1 Chartism, Chartists 8, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24–7, 28, 43, 47, 48, 49, 53, 351, 360 chemical industries 60, 69 China 11, 17, 38, 53, 90, 91, 177, 200, 257, 267, 269, 290, 315, 345 cholera 23, 35, 82, 96, 110, 112, 119, 120, 121–4, 125, 142, 370, 376, 380, 384 Churchill, Randolph 93, 214, 229, 249, 372 Churchill, Winston 214, 301, 309, 310, 316, 331, 341, 342, 353 Church of England 13, 30, 106, 128, 149, 151, 158, 162, 169, 223, 225, 234, 273, 274, 275, 276, 305, 309, 382, 383, 385 Civil Service 23, 37, 130, 157, 158, 166, 178, 182, 183, 194, 280, 384 Civil War, USA see War between the States climbing boys 117, 131, 136, 143, 365 coal, coal mining 5, 14, 27, 28, 46, 48, 60, 61, 62, 63–5, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 80–1, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90–1, 93, 100, 101, 106, 130–1, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 179, 183, 188, 262, 276, 280, 283, 313, 314, 329, 330, 338, 339, 342, 350, 365, 373, 384, 387 coalition government 303, 304, 305, 318, 319, 320, 329, 340, 341, 355, 360, 368, 370, 375, 377 Cobden, Richard, 11, 167 Collins, Michael 216, 241, 242 Communism 142, 298, 320, 378, 383 Conservatives, Conservative Party 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19–21, 23, 31, 48, 49, 51, 103, 119, 120, 135, 136–8, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 174, 180, 181, 182–4, 208, 212, 213,

214, 215, 219, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 232–4, 237, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 251, Chap 7, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 315, 316, 318, 320, 322, 324, 328, 329, 332, 333, 340, 341, 347, 350, 351, 360, 365, 368–9, 370–1, 372–3, 375, 377, 380 Conspiracy to Murder Bill, 1858 8, 9, 11, 18, 40, 44 consumer goods 64, 65, 67, 76, 105 Contagious Diseases Act, 1864 Cook, Thomas 79, 101 Co-operative Movement 28, 381 Corn Laws 10, 12, 21, 61, 69, 93, 103, 210, 219, 270, 360, 373 cotton 19, 53, 61, 66, 71, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 101, 160, 262, 278, 289, 384 County Councils 128, 137, 157, 169, 175, 180, 181, 209, 232, 259, 260, 269, 324, 377 Crimea, Crimea War 17, 20, 32, 33–6, 39, 40, 41, 43, 51, 52, 53, 57, 61, 62, 87, 89, 101, 178, 185, 193, 219, 280, 376 Cross, Richard 138, 184, 197, 371–2 Cruelty to Animals Act, 1877 111, 113, 137 Crystal Palace 12, 23, 32, 79, 166 Curzon, Lord 340 Cyprus 165, 168, 176, 186, 187, 190, 192, 280 Dalhousie, Lord 18, 37 Danube, River 33, 34, 35, 165, 185, 187 Dardanelles Campaign 179, 341, 342 Davison, Emily Wilding 310, 312 Davitt, Michael 222, 229 death duties 4, 157, 171, 258, 276, 322 defence expenditure 6, 15, 53, 176–8, 196, 281, 295, 316, 349 depression 60, 61, 62, 66, 92–4, 102, 103, 104, 139, 166, 170, 211, 222, 229, 261, 274, 308, 364, 385 Derby, 14th Earl of 4, 9, 10, 11, 20, 23, 35, 50, 166, 182, 183 Derby, 15th Earl of 163, 165 De Valera, Eamonn 216, 239, 240 Dickens, Charles 39, 83, 95, 96, 118, 125, 146, 151, 227 Disraeli, Benjamin 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 49, 110, 120, 135–8, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 165–7, 168, 173, 178, 181, 182–4, 185–7, 188–9, 190–2, 193–4, 195–201, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 275, 294, 295, 324, 361, 364, 371, 372–3, 380 domestic service 71, 78, 83, 84, 85, 96, 115, 124, 132, 134, 174, 260, 338 Dominions, Dominion status 5, 88, 177, 213, 217, 242, 243, 252, 265, 270, 319, 333, 337, 385

INDEX • 395 Dreadnought, HMS 76, 257, 260, 316, 333, 378 Dublin 209, 212, 215, 217, 226, 228, 233, 235, 238, 239, 241, 369 Easter Rising, 1916 208, 209, 215, 223, 228, 238–40, 250, 389 Ecclesiastical Titles Act, 1851 9, 13, 382 education 6, 24, 26, 28, 38, 48, 49, 70, 78, 80, 82, 85, 86, 93, 110, 111, 114–15, 116, 123, 127–30, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 146, 148–52, 158, 180, 223, 232, 257, 259, 260, 269, 270, 275, 289, 295, 299, 305, 309, 325, 327, 332, 360, 361, 369, 373, 376, 381 Education Act 1870 94, 103, 104, 105, 111, 128, 149, 151 Education Act 1880 104, 111, 151 Education Act 1891, 111, 129, 137, 151, 260 Education Act 1902 3, 111, 128, 129, 149, 150, 151, 152, 260 Education Act 1918 111, 139 Edward VII 2, 257, 263, 267, 272, 281, 290, 305, 309, 323 Egypt 43, 156, 157, 163, 168, 173, 185, 186, 190–194, 202, 205, 267, 281, 282, 283, 332, 363 electorate 3, 14, 15, 22, 24, 47, 127, 161, 167, 170, 171, 183, 184, 185, 232, 246, 261, 270, 274, 275, 290, 295, 307, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 348, 349, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371 electricity 87, 91, 130, 313, 330 Empire, British 5, 6, 8, 15, 19, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,44, 53, 54, 62, 74, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 150, 156, 162, 163, 166, 173, 176, 178, 185, 189, 190, 192–4, 195–9, 203, 205, 213, 214, 215, 227, 244, 246, 248, 252, 262, 267, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 317, 318, 319, 320, 333, 344, 345, 353, 363, 364, 365, 370, 371, 374, 380, 386 Empress of India 2, 162, 192–4, 271, 272, 280 Engels, Friedrich 13, 28 Entente Cordiale 257, 267, 268, 281, 285, 315, 316, 332, 334, 336, 344 Ethiopia Eton College 77, 261, 373, 380, 385 Fabian Society, 170, 180, 261, 277, 381 Factory Acts 29, 61, 84, 111, 113, 115, 132, 136, 146 farming see agriculture Fenians 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 220, 221–4, 225, 233, 235, 239, 241, 242, 245, 385

First World War see Great War Fisher, Admiral Sir John 341 France 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26, 28, 34, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 62, 66, 73, 86, 90, 91, 102, 161, 170, 177, 192, 200, 203, 230, 264, 267, 268, 269, 272, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 290, 315, 316, 317, 318, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 341, 343, 344, 345, 363, 389 franchise 4, 6, 14, 21, 22–4, 26, 29, 46–9, 71, 78, 112, 116, 120, 126, 127, 134, 136, 143, 146, 150, 158, 167, 169, 171, 174, 175, 181, 183, 184, 197, 211, 212, 216, 224, 226, 230, 241, 252, 259, 261, 270, 277, 295, 308, 310, 319, 324, 325–8, 350, 352, 353–5, 360, 361, 373, 377, 380, 385, 388 free trade 4, 8, 10, 20, 43, 53, 61, 90, 102, 103, 104, 105, 158, 167, 178, 219, 224, 275, 289, 290, 294, 295, 306, 360, 365, 373, 385 Friendly Societies 28, 76, 145 Gallipoli see Dardanelles Campaign Garibaldi 18, 23, 35, 41, 42, 44 gas 61, 63, 64, 70, 116, 119, 130, 133, 134, 135, 170, 180, 278, 330, 384, 387 general elections 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 221, 25, 40, 49, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 175, 184, 189, 201, 203, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 239, 241, 242, 243, 249, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 269, 270, 274–9, 288–90, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 340, 341, 348, 350, 368, 372, 373, 375, 377, 384, 386, 388 George V 3, 248, 272, 305, 309, 323 Germany, German 2, 8,16,18, 19, 30, 31, 33, 40, 43, 44, 51, 52, 65, 66, 69, 73, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 102, 104, 105, 116, 127, 151, 161, 163, 165, 168, 171, 177, 178, 186, 187, 188, 192, 193, 194, 200, 202, 203, 215, 233, 240, 237, 241, 257, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 301, 302, 307, 312, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 332–6, 337, 339, 344–6, 363, 375, 376, 378, 379, 389 Gilchrist Thomas 65 Gladstone,William Ewart 2, 4, 8, 11, 13, 19, 20, 23, 25, 48, 50, 53, 54, 62, 73,110, 135–8, 156–63, 166–9, 171, 173, 175, 176, 179, 181, 182–4, 188–92, 194, 195–8, 200–3, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 222, 224–7, 228, 229, 230, 233, 244–7, 258, 260, 262, 264, 268, 272, 275, 284, 304, 364, 367, 370, 371, 373, 378

396 • INDEX grants-in-aid 10, 112, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128, 160, 179, 180, 259, 276, 386 Great Exhibition 8, 9, 12, 30, 32, 33, 39, 79, 95, 106, 130, 367 Great War 3, 4, 6, 32, 62, 67, 70, 71, 73, 83, 88, 91, 92, 95, 101, 115, 116, 125, 127, 128, 139, 143, 178, 186, 187, 201, 208, 215, 229, 237, 238, 239, 240–2, 250, 272, 281, 282, 288, 295, 298, 300, 304, 305, 312, 315, 318, 326, 327, 328, 329, 332, 334, 336, 338, 339, 340, 344, 353, 354, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 370, 374, 375, 377, 381, 387 Griffith, Arthur 216, 241, 242, 389 ‘gunboat diplomacy’ 16, 42 Habsburg Empire see Austria-Hungary Haig, General Sir Douglas 342 Hardie, Keir 258, 277, 278, 311, 325, 373, 377 Hartington, Lord 162, 166 Haynau, General 16, 40, 42, 44, 52 Home Office 160, 162, 181, 310, 311, 313, 372 horses 73, 74, 75, 81, 96, 118, 134, 171, 287 hospitals 3, 35, 85, 113, 116, 122, 125, 127, 147, 174, 180, 376 House of Commons 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 40, 46, 47, 48, 52, 73, 74, 112, 123, 139, 159, 166, 173, 175, 181, 197, 199, 204, 209, 214, 225, 227, 228, 231, 235, 244, 245, 247, 250, 258, 259, 264, 272, 274, 288, 289, 297, 299, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 322, 325, 327, 328, 347, 349, 350, 351, 360, 368, 370, 372, 374, 378, 379, 380, 383, 384 House of Lords 4, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 40, 47, 52, 77, 131, 139, 140, 141, 160, 166, 167, 171, 174, 209, 213, 214, 226, 229, 230, 231, 233, 246, 249, 259, 268, 270, 278, 295, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308–9, 310, 321–3, 328, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 360, 361, 368, 375, 380, 383, 384 housing 6, 27, 75, 78, 96, 111, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 139, 142, 143, 197, 232, 361, 369, 370, 371 Imperial Preference 264, 270, 275, 277, 289, 293, 295, 333, 371 income tax 4, 146, 171, 259, 276, 277, 307, 322 India 5, 33, 34, 39, 41, 43, 53, 67, 88, 89, 91, 149, 163, 165, 166, 170, 173, 177, 179, 182, 185, 188, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 264, 271, 280, 281, 283, 287, 288, 305, 315, 319, 333, 352, 363, 376, 380, 386, 389 India Act 1858 9, 18, 193 Indian Civil Service 178, 194, 280

Indian Mutiny 1857, 8, 9, 18, 36–38, 41, 280 Indian National Congress 319 inflation 313, 342 investment 60, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 103, 130, 283 Ireland 5, 10, 14, 15, 20, 26, 33, 46, 53, 67, 75, 138, 156, 158, 161, 167, 169, 173, Ch.6, 265, 268, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276, 287, 288, 290, 294, 300, 304, 318, 326, 332, 356, 362, 364, 368, 369, 370, 373, 375, 378, 385, 389; Act of Union 5, 210, 383; Coercion Acts 10, 212, 225, 226; famine 5, 53, 67, 208, 209, 210, 221, 212, 217–21, 224, 362, 364; Home Rule 161, 166, 167, 169, 171, 189, 198, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 221, 223, 225, 226, 227–9, 230–1, 233–8, 240–8, 251–2, 256, 258, 259, 268, 274, 275, 290, 295, 297, 304, 305, 307, 308, 318, 324, 354, 360, 368, 370–1, 373, 378–9; Land Acts 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 217, 223, 225, 226, 229, 246, 268, 290 Irish Land League, 208, 209, 211, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 378, 379, 384 Irish Republican Brotherhood see Fenians iron and steel industry 48, 60, 65, 68, 72, 74, 80, 81, 86, 89, 90, 91, 177, 179, 387 Italy 17, 18, 23, 42, 66, 157, 171, 185, 235, 281, 282, 285, 333, 376 Japan 89, 90, 91, 257, 267, 268, 281, 282, 290, 315, 320, 332, 333, 335, 345 Jenner, Dr Edward 50, 52 Jews 14, 17, 67, 68, 182, 319, 368, 369, 378 jingoism 141, 165, 193, 202, 246, 386 Jubilee 2, 193, 257, 263, 271, 273, 274, 275 Jutland, Battle of, 1916 Keynes, John Maynard 346 ‘Khaki’ Election 1900 256, 257, 263, 274, 294, 296, 306 Kingsley, Charles 131 Kitchener, General Herbert 87, 168, 191, 301 Kipling, Rudyard 333, 352, 354 Kossuth 16, 41, 42, 44 Labour Party 6, 21, 29, 62, 64, 135, 139, 169, 174, 213, 239, 256, 258, 261, 264, 274, 277–9, 288, 290, 294, 295, 296–301, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309, 311, 313, 318, 320, 322, 324, 325, 327–9, 331, 340, 341, 342, 348, 360, 365, 373, 374, 377, 381

INDEX • 397 Liberals, Liberal Party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 48, 51, 103, 110, 120, 125, 135–41, 145, 147, 148, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 212, 213, 214, 219, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232–4, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 288, 289, 290, 293, 294, 295, 299, 300, Chap 8, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 381 literacy 28, 80, 115, 125, 136, 150, 184, 227, 336 Liverpool 19, 62, 70, 71, 101, 149, 150, 166, 212, 220, 222, 314, 373 Lloyd George, David 141, 171, 214, 242, 305, 307, 309, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 329, 332, 340–3, 346, 348, 349, 351, 354, 364, 368, 370, 375–6, 377 local government 10, 64, 84, 95, 96, 111, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 136, 139, 143, 144, 156, 159, 160, 169, 171, 179–81, 183, 209, 216, 232, 241, 244, 246, 256, 259, 260, 275, 276, 326, 331, 361, 371, 372, 374, 386, 388 Louis Napoleon Bonaparte see Napoleon III of France Louis Philippe, King of France 16, 31, 41, 42, 52 Lowe, Robert 17, 114, 128 Manchester 62, 68, 71, 98, 101, 117, 119, 167, 209, 220, 222, 314, 325, 368, 370, 375, 376, 377 Marx, Karl, Marxism 13, 23, 26, 28, 169, 277, 388 matchmaking 116, 134, 170 Maynooth College 13, 210 Melbourne, Lord 2, 20, 26, 273 merchant shipping 65, 81, 89, 90, 91, 92, 126, 131, 136, 142, 313 Metropolitan Police 12, 25, 26, 113, 119, 170, 176, 180, 181, 310, 311, 313, 331, 354, 379 Metternich, Prince 16, 50, 51, 52, 53 Mill, John Stuart 15, 48, 158, 376 ‘Model’ Trade Unions 27, 28 Moldavia see Romania monarchy 2, 3, 12, 31, 32, 42, 53, 192, 230, 239, 262, 271–3, 274, 276, 285, 290, 349, 361, 367 Morocco 267, 268, 282, 316, 332, 334 motor car 61, 62, 257, 270 Munitions, Ministry of 331, 339, 341, 342, 375 Napoleon III of France 16, 17, 18, 40, 51, 52, 271, 272 National Insurance 111, 113, 125, 126, 139, 140, 141, 145, 147, 305, 307, 313, 322, 328

nationalisation 61, 62, 73, 305, 387 Newman, Bishop John Henry 13 newspapers 13, 18, 30, 49, 77, 80, 82, 88, 99, 100, 102, 106, 115, 123, 125, 133, 135, 152, 163, 194, 197, 201, 202, 228, 239, 258, 274, 289, 293, 295, 301, 321, 325, 332, 334, 341, 342, 368, 372, 375, 378 New Zealand 5, 38, 39, 69, 80, 205, 214, 230, 252, 279, 319, 363 Nightingale, Florence 35, 36, 272, 361, 376 O’Connor, Feargus 22, 25, 26, 45 Old Age Pension Act, 1908 76, 82, 84, 111, 113, 124, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 305, 306, 309, 322, 328, 346 opium, opium trade 17, 40, 53, 90 Orsini Plot 8, 18, 40 Osborne House 12, 33, 193, 271 Osborne Judgement, 1909 306, 312, 324, 327, 330, 348, 350 Ottoman Empire see Turkey outdoor relief 124, 144, 146, 148, 219, 220, 276, 387 Oxford Movement 13, 273, 274 Pacifico, Don 8, 9, 16, 39–41, 44, 52 Palestine 34, 319, 345, 368 Palmerston, Lord 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15–20, 31, 33, 35, 39–42, 50, 52, 53, 54, 163, 166, 182, 273, 361, 364, 373 Pankhurst, Christabel 326, 377 Pankhurst, Emmeline 310, 311, 351, 352, 353, 354, 376–7 Pankhurst, Sylvia 312, 318, 326, 340, 377, 378 Parliament Act, 1911 233, 304, 305, 309, 320, 322, 323, 341, 346–51 Parliamentary Reform Act, 1867 9, 14, 15, 20, 22–4, 46–9, 134, 136, 149, 150, 181, 183, 197, 277, 295, 310, 324, 360, 372, 373 Parliamentary Reform Act, 1884–5 157, 173–6, 181, 183, 197, 208, 212, 224, 226, 230, 277, 295, 310, 325, 373 Parliamentary Reform Act, 1918 216, 241, 305, 319, 326, 353, 354, 377 Parnell, Charles Stuart 169, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 223, 225, 226, 227–9, 231, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 367, 378–9, 384 Paris, Treaty of 1856 18, 35, 41, 51, 52, 185 Payment by Results 111, 114, 128, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152

398 • INDEX payment of MPs 13, 24, 175, 231, 262, 278, 305, 313, 327, 328, 348, 350, 374 Peel, Robert, Peelites 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 45, 48, 119, 180, 210, 219, 224, 226, 270, 341, 373 Penny Post 80, 115 Plimsoll, Samuel, Plimsoll Line 131, 142 pocket boroughs 22, 25, 261, 350, 387 Poland 18, 52, 67, 335, 344, 345 pollution 61, 70, 119, 120, 123, 136, 137, 361 poorhouse, see workhouse Poor Law 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 124–7, 136, 138, 144–8, 160, 174, 177, 179, 180, 181, 219, 259, 276, 370, 381 Primrose League 182, 258, 270, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 372 probation 139 Protection 4, 10, 103, 104, 158, 219, 239, 259, 260, 264, 270, 289, 291, 360, 365, 388 Prussia see Germany public health 5–6, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117–21, 138, 156, 159, 356, 376, 381, 385 Public Health Act 1848 111, 112, 120, 137, 143 Public Health Act 1875, 120, 136, 159 radio 61, 343 railways 5, 33, 37, 60, 61, 62–3, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72–3, 74–82, 86–9, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98–102, 106, 126, 130, 135, 189, 220, 227, 232, 262, 264, 267, 278, 281, 283, 286, 287, 312, 313, 314, 315, 330, 331, 333, 339, 342, 364, 369, 374, 386, 388; regulation of 61, 62, 342 Redmond, John 214, 215, 229, 238, 239, 240, 249, 250, 290 Red Sea 33, 43, 188, 191, 200 Reform League 23, 28 Reform Union 23 refrigeration 61, 69, 80, 87, 92 reparations 265, 289, 321, 344, 345, 346 Repington Despatch 341 Revised Code see Payment by Results Revolutions of 1848 8, 16, 18, 33, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 57, 221 Rhodes, Cecil 88, 168, 171, 194 Riot Act 216, 388 Roman Catholic Church 5, 13, 30, 34, 169, 210, 211, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 249, 252, 273, 378, 382, 383, 385, 389 Romania 34, 165

Rosebery, Lord 171, 173, 213, 256, 257, 258, 272, 275, 288, 373 Rothschild, Lionel de 14 Rothschild’s Bank 163, 190, 191, 371 rotten boroughs 22, 25, 26, 174, 388 Royal Navy 15, 31, 34, 35, 42, 53, 130, 165, 168, 176, 177, 178, 187, 188, 199, 200, 201, 260, 267, 280, 315, 316, 332, 333, 337, 341, 343, 344, 363, 368, 384 Royal Titles Act, 1876 157, 162, 192–4, 202, 273, 280 Russell, Lord John 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23, 35, 50, 219 Russia, Russians 5, 16, 17, 18, 33, 34–6, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 53, 63, 67, 87, 89, 90, 160, 163, 165, 168, 171, 185, 186, 187, 192, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 211, 267, 280, 281, 282, 285, 305, 315, 316, 320, 321, 325, 333, 334, 335, 336, 344, 345, 363, 378, 383, 389 Sale of Food and Drugs Legislation 67, 111, 120, 136, 180 Salisbury, Marquis of 4, 61, 136, 137, 157, 161, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 180, 182, 212, 213, 228, 229, 232, 244, 245, 246, 247, 256, 257, 258, 259, 263, 267, 268–71, 275, 280, 281, 282, 283, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 368, 370, 372, 380 sanitation 70, 96, 112, 120, 122, 123, 124, 142, 370, 380 San Stephano, Treaty of, 1878 165, 185, 186, 187 Schleswig-Holstein 8, 16, 18, 40, 42, 52 Scramble for Africa see Africa seamstresses 65, 389 Secret Ballot 13, 15, 25, 48, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 166, 175, 183, 184, 204–5, 258, 261, 274, 290, 383 Serbia 165, 186, 335 Sevastopol 35, 57, 62, 87 sewage see sanitation Sheffield Outrages 29 shipbuilding 65, 330, 334 Shops Act 1906 83, 133 Sinn Féin 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 228, 229, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 320, 389 South Africa 39, 61, 88, 92, 101, 156, 157, 163, 168, 171, 179, 188–90, 192, 194, 203, 205, 214, 232, 256, 265, 269, 284, 287, 288, 289, 301, 302, 305, 312, 319, 375, 379, 380, 387 smallpox 61, 82 Smiles, Samuel 79, 101 Snow, Dr John 31, 110, 112, 121–4, 380–1

INDEX • 399 Spain 8, 15, 284, 285, 378 Speaker of the House of Commons 3, 311 spinning 66, 83, 83. 85, 93, 389 ‘splendid isolation’ 171, 256, 267, 279–82, 333 Stamp Duty 4, 322 steam 63, 64, 68, 72, 74, 86, 90, 95, 130, 177, 179, 188, 280, 369 steel see iron and steel industry Stockmar, Baron 25, 45, 47 Sudan 87, 88, 156, 168, 178, 190–2, 202, 257, 275, 283, 284 Suez Canal 33, 53, 157, 163, 166, 168, 176, 185, 188, 190, 191, 192, 198, 199, 200, 202, 264, 273, 280, 283, 288, 371 suffragettes see WSPU sweatshops, sweated trades 61, 139, 307, 312, 313, 327, 378, 389 Swindon 78 Switzerland, Swiss Federation 16, 40, 42 Taff Vale 71, 111, 257, 262, 278, 290, 306, 312, 330 Tariff Reform 104, 256, 257, 259, 264, 269, 270, 275, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 306, 307, 368, 371 textiles 60, 66, 81, 90, 91, 132, 308, 330 Thorne, Will 64, 134, 170 Tientsin, Treaty of, 1858 17, 41 Tillett, Ben 134, 135, 170, 296, 298, 300 Trade Boards 61, 139, 307, 327, 328 Trade Union Act, 1913 111, 305 Trade Union Congress, TUC 27, 170, 213, 229, 262, 328 Trade Unions 8, 24, 27–9, 48, 62, 64, 85, 94, 110, 111, 112, 116, 129, 130, 131, 133–5, 141, 151, 158, 160, 162, 170, 174, 175, 183, 256, 261, 262, 277–9, 288, 294, 295, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 306, 309, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318, 324, 326, 327, 329, 330–2, 339, 342, 347, 348, 350, 360, 361, 373, 374, 375 transport 5, 60, 62, 63, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104, 118, 121, 123, 175, 213, 267, 270, 313, 315, 330, 338, 362, 364, 365 Treaty Ports 17, 53 Trent incident 9, 19, 31, 32, 41, 367 Triple Alliance 281, 333, 334 Triple Entente 333, 334 Triple Industrial Alliance, 1914 315, 330, 332, 337 Turkey 5, 17, 34, 35, 36, 43, 163, 165, 166, 185, 186, 187, 267, 272, 273, 280, 333, 363 typhoid 2, 19, 82, 96, 121, 123, 361, 367

Ulster 75, 208, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 218, 222, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 243, 247–51, 252, 290, 337, 369 Unionist Party 3, 169, 171, 208, 213, 228, 229, 230, 234–7, 238, 240, 241, 246, 248, 258, 263, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 288, 290, 308, 320, 341, 361, 369, 370, 371 United States of America see USA urbanisation 5, 60, 70, 75, 79, 81, 94–7, 112, 121, 362 USA 8, 14, 19, 36, 38, 41, 44, 53, 61, 65, 66, 67, 69, 81, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 103, 104, 116, 160, 168, 188, 208, 210, 218, 219, 220, 221–4, 239, 244, 245, 275, 283, 312, 320, 321, 344, 374, 377, 385, 388 Versailles, Treaty of, 1919 6, 242, 345, 346 Victoria Cross 32, 33, 272 Victoria, queen and empress 2, 16, 17, 30, 31, 32, 45, 52, 53, 56, 171, 184, 192, 194, 230, 256, 257, 262, 271–3, 361, 364, 367, 372, 381 Wales 2, 71, 75, 96, 100, 101, 120, 145, 158, 220, 239, 242, 262, 271, 313, 330, 331, 375 Wallachia see Romania War between the States 31, 36, 53, 61, 66, 92, 160, 210, 221, 224, 245, 280, 282 weaving 27, 84, 91, 314 Webb, Sidney and Beatrice 180, 261, 381 wheat 69, 92, 94, 104, 219, 339 Windsor Castle 2, 12, 123 Wiseman, Cardinal Nicholas 13, 382 women 15, 22, 46, 48, 49, 70, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 125, 149, 150, 151, 167, 171, 174, 175, 184, 270, 292, 294, 295, 300, 304, 305, 306, 310–12, 318, 319, 321, 323–6, 327, 329, 332, 338, 339, 350, 351–5, 361, 364, 365, 369, 376, 377, 378; in industry 48, 60, 61, 70, 82–6, 131, 134, 170, 314; in domestic service 71, 78, 132 Women’s Social and Political Union, WSPU 310, 312, 315, 319, 324, 325, 326, 337, 340, 353, 354, 355, 368, 377, 378 Woodrow Wilson, President 320, 321, 344, 345 workhouse 76, 106, 113, 124, 125, 126, 127, 138, 140, 144, 146, 147, 148, 219, 276, 387 World War, 1914–1918, see Great War