Saturday, 12 March 2016

Towards 1914

Britain’s alliances

In 1902 Britain ended its long period of isolation, which the South African War had so strikingly demonstrated, by entering into an alliance with Japan. It was strictly limited and was inspired by concerns over Russian and German influence in China and Manchuria and was only to last for five years. This gave the Japanese the assurance of Britain’s neutrality if Japan went to war with Russia. But it did not address British concerns about Russian activities in Afghanistan and Tibet.

Though relations with France remained bad over territorial disputes in East Africa,  Britain and France also had common concerns over Russia, and the British Foreign Minister, Lansdowne and his French counterpart Delcassé, sought ways to ease hostilities. In 1903 Edward VII visited France and tensions eased. The outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 made the need for an agreement even more urgent.

In April 1904 the Entente Cordiale was signed. Britain was allowed to consolidate its hold on Egypt and France was allowed to establish a protectorate over Morocco; Siam would be left an independent buffer between Burma and Indochina This did not, in practice, give Britain a great deal. Nevertheless, though the entente was not a formal alliance, it proved a diplomatic turning point.

The first Moroccan crisis

The Anglo-French Entente had not been aimed at Germany, but it created problems for German policy makers. In March 1905 Wilhelm II made a deliberate attempt to break it. He paid a state visit to Tangier in which he made a speech emphasizing Germany’s commercial interests in Morocco and the importance of maintaining the independence of its Sultan.This was diplomatic bluster on Wilhelm’s part. Germany had no economic interests in Morocco and certainly did not want war. But it caused French and British diplomats to discuss the military possibilities of the Entente in the event of a war with Germany.

Germany succeeded in having an international conference called at Algeciras in 1906. The conference confirmed the integrity of the Sultan's domains but sanctioned French and Spanish policing of Moroccan ports and collection of the customs dues. There was now no hope of a Franco-German rapprochement and the Anglo-French entente was solidified. The crisis revealed to British statesmen the importance of France and was the effectual end of the policy of isolation. It also revealed Germany’s potentially dangerous isolation, with only Austria-Hungary supporting its position.

The naval race

From 1897 Germany embarked on a drive for world power (Weltpolitik) which upset the relative stability of late nineteenth-century politics and posed a direct challenge to Britain. Germany felt that she was owed this status. She was by far and away the most advanced and dynamic of the great powers, but felt herself surrounded by both a backward Russia and a France that was smarting for revenge. She saw Britain as a declining power and herself best place to take advantage of this decline.

This drive expressed itself in naval policy, which was in part a response to a campaign whipped up by the Navy League. In 1898 the German Navy law announced their intention to build a battle fleet. A law of 1900 decreed that this fleet was to be strong enough to challenge the British in the North Sea. This committed Germany to a continuous, and expensive programme.

This did not mean that the German government was envisaging an offensive naval war against Britain. Admiral von Tirpitz was following contemporary strategic thinking when he calculated that if Germany had two battleships for every three floated by Britain – which meant a German North Sea fleet of some sixty battleships - then the German navy stood a good chance of victory in a defensive war. If so, then Britain would have lost her one great advantage – her naval supremacy.

The Liberal government would have preferred spending on social reform, but it was pushed by events. British naval thinking, exemplified by Sir John ('Jackie') Fisher the First Sea Lord from 1904, was driven by the ‘two-power standard’ whereby the Royal Navy was to be stronger than the combined fleets of the next two maritime powers.

In 1906 HMS Dreadnought was launched. She was 1,500 tons heavier than the last pre-dreadnought built for the Royal Navy and three knots faster and had ten 12 inch guns. This meant that she could outgun and outsail all other battleships, rendering them obsolete until the Germans build their own dreadnoughts.

HMS Dreadnought

By 1909 it was suddenly realised that the Germans were going to be building 10 Dreadnoughts against the 8 British ones that had been ordered up to then. The ‘We want eight and we won't wait’ panic then ensued, and six battleships and two battlecruisers were ordered in the 1909 programme. After that, the pace was kept up. Germany would only give up her naval plans in return for a British promise of unconditional neutrality in a Franco-German conflict, and after Algeciras, such a compromise was impossible.

The Anglo-Russian entente

On 31 August 1907 Britain and Russia had concluded the Anglo-Russian Entente in St. Petersburg. It ended decades of hostility by defining their respective spheres of interest in Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet, with Russia taking the northern areas of Persia and Britain taking the Persian Gulf area in the south. Its primary aim was to check German expansion into the area. Along with the Franco-Russian alliance and the Entente Cordiale, this formed the Triple Entente between the UK, France and Russia.

Crisis in the Balkans

In 1908 Balkan issues re-emerged to destabilize Europe. In 1908 the Young Turks, a nationalist and westernizing group, led a successful revolution forcing Abdul Hamid to issue a new constitution. The instability in the Balkans convinced the Austrian foreign minister Aehrenthal, that the status quo was not in the Habsburg interest as the weakening of Turkey was stirring up the South Slavs within the Empire and also outside it. In October 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia- Herzegovina, taking Russia by surprise as it pre-empted negotiations over the Balkans that were already taking place between the two powers. In spite of misgivings Germany backed Austria-Hungary. 

The annexation was a humiliation not only for Russia but also for Serbia which regarded itself as the protector of all South Slavs (‘Greater Serbia’ or ‘Yugoslavia’) including the Bosnians. There were massive demonstrations in Belgrade, where parliament voted emergency funds for war.

The crisis ended in March 1909.  The annexation was reluctantly accepted and Austria made formal amends to the Turks by agreeing to pay for crown property in the provinces but the damage had been done. There was now a distinct possibility of open conflict between Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. Serbia was now implacably hostile to Austria and it began to support openly the South Slav revolutionary movements. Meanwhile Russia began to step up her arms programme.

The second Moroccan crisis

After 1908 the central powers and the Entente grew ever further apart. The next conflict arose (again) over Morocco. Like China and Turkey, it was a crumbling state and a prey to the interference of the European powers. When a Berber rebellion took place in 1911 the French sent an expedition to occupy Fez, the capital, thus putting central Morocco under direct French control. The French remained in Fez after the crisis had died down. On 1 July the Kaiser ordered the gunboat Panther to Agadir on the grounds that German nationals in Morocco needed protection (even though there weren’t any!).

This stirred up alarm in Britain, forcing Lloyd George to state publicly that Britain could not be treated as of no account in a question that affected her interests. This was read as a declaration of support for France in a war against Germany. In November France and Germany reached a compromise (Morocco would become a French protectorate in return for economic concessions to German interests and a slice of territory in the French Congo). However, public opinion was inflamed in both France and Germany and the British then stepped up the production of Dreadnoughts.

In September 1911 Italy declared war on Turkey and landed troops in Tripoli. When the Italians bombarded the Dodecanese the Turks closed the Straits, and this launched a new crisis in the Balkans.

The First Balkan War

With Turkey embroiled in a war with Italy, the Balkan states moved in. In March 1912 Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro formed the Balkan League under Russian auspices to take Macedonia away from Turkey. The war began when Montenegro declared war on Turkey, on 8 October 1912, to be followed by Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. The league was able to field a combined force of 750,000 men was soon victorious.

The Turkish collapse was so complete that all parties were willing to conclude an armistice on Dec. 3, 1912. A peace conference was begun in London, but after a coup d'état by the Young Turks in Constantinople in January 1913, war with the Ottomans was resumed and again the Turks were routed. Under a peace treaty signed in London on May 30, 1913, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its remaining European territory, including Macedonia and Albania. The creation of an independent Albania was a coup for Austria-Hungary as it cut off Serbia from the sea.

The Second Balkan War

This began when Serbia, Greece, and Romania quarreled with Bulgaria over the division of their joint conquests in Macedonia. On June 1, 1913, Serbia and Greece formed an alliance against Bulgaria, and the war began on the night of June 29/30, 1913, when King Ferdinand of Bulgaria ordered his troops to attack Serbian and Greek forces in Macedonia. The Bulgarians were defeated, however, and a peace treaty was signed at Bucharest between the combatants on August 10, 1913. Under the terms of the treaty, Greece and Serbia divided up most of Macedonia between themselves, leaving Bulgaria with only a small part of the region.

The war was a foretaste of what was to come. For the first time a military aircraft (Romanian) was seen flying over a large civilian centre (Sofia). There were appalling atrocities on both sides. 21% of the Bulgarian troops were killed or wounded or died from disease.

The political consequences of the wars were considerable. An enlarged Serbia was now the prominent Balkan power and Russia’s only ally in the region. The Austrians were deeply anxious about Serbia’s ability to stir up trouble among their Slav subjects.

The coming of war

In 1913 the European powers were preparing for a possible war in what has been called ‘the great acceleration’ of the arms race. In March the German government introduced a new army bill designed to provide superiority over Russia in the following year. In confidence the party leaders in the Reichstag were told that the increases were justified by the expectation of the ‘coming world war’. The French urged on the Russians the necessity of completing the railways which would enable them to present Germany with a war on two fronts. The British government was proceeding with its naval programme. Russia was so fearful of the implications of the Berlin-Baghdad railway that she began a huge expansion of her forces and even contemplated seizing the Straits.

Yet none of the powers wanted a world war, and right up to 1914 imperial difficulties were negotiated on a case by case basis.  The over-riding factor behind the war was Austrian fear of Serbia. She was prepared to go to war because she could rely on German support and Germany was prepared to back Austria because of her new interest in Turkey and her calculation that if there had to be a war, it should come sooner rather than later.

The entry of France into the war was made inevitable by the plan drawn up in 1905 by the German chief of staff, Alfred von Schlieffen and arouse out of his concern that Germany could be ‘encircled’ by simultaneous attacks from France and Russia. This required that if war broke out with Russia, France should be eliminated by a pre-emptive knock-out blow. Since this attack was to come through Belgium, it risked bringing Britain into the war, since Belgian independence was guaranteed by international treaty.

Sarajevo and after

On 28 June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and his wife were murdered in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip (right). Princip was a member of the Young Bosnians, one of a group that sought an independent Yugoslav state. The group had been supplied with weapons by an ultra-nationalist organization called the Black Hand.

The assassination gave the Austro-Hungarians the excuse needed to deal with Serbia. On 23 July the Vienna government presented an ultimatum to Serbia that was designed to be humiliating and to be rejected. In support of Serbia, the tsar ordered the partial mobilization of Russian forces. Serbia then accepted most though not all of the terms.

On 28 July Austria declared war on Serbia. On 30 July Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary and Germany.

On 31 July the Germans began to mobilize. On 1 August Wilhelm was told by his generals that the forces that had been prepared for a war in the west could not be redeployed on the Russian front - the Schlieffen plan had to go ahead - Germany now had to attack France. On the same day Germany declared war on Russia. On 3 August it declared war on Belgium and France. In the early hours of 4 August Germany invaded Belgium.

Britain declares war

The German invasion of Belgium transformed British opinion (see left for Mr Punch's view), and on 4 August Britain declared war in Germany. On 6 August Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. 

Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary is reputed to have said,

'The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.'

Sir Edward Grey
The war had crept up on a Britain distracted by the crisis in Ulster, with Grey making policy over the heads of his colleagues.  Britain was not bound by treaty to defend Russia or France from attack, though the invasion of Belgium was clearly a threat to her interests as well as being the breaking of an international treaty. Lloyd George believed that Grey mishandled the situation by failing to warn the German ambassador in time that Britain would take its treaty obligations to Belgium so seriously: ‘Had [Grey] warned Germany in time of the point at which Britain would declare war…the issue would have been different.’  We will never know if he was right.

The Liberals in power: 4 Ireland

The Ulster Volunteers

Of all the rebellions which presaged the ‘strange death of Liberal England’, that over Home Rule was undoubtedly the most intractable.

The question of Home Rule

The Liberals were committed by their need for Nationalist votes to pass a Home Rule Act, but this had never been approved by the British electorate, and it involved coercing a quarter of the population of the island of Ireland into (as they saw it) giving up their British allegiance.

In the meantime the South African War had radicalized Irish politics, with many Irish Catholics supporting the Boers. In 1905 Arthur Griffith began the process of bringing the various nationalist factions and societies together as Sinn Féin. In its early stages it was a feminist and pacifist organization, but after 1916 it would morph into a very different party.

One pressing problem was over how Irish Home Rule would affect the rest of the United Kingdom. Churchill advocated the division of the UK into ten or twelve separate ‘provinces’, each of which would have its own assembly, but his proposition was greeted with derision: why should Britain be dismembered just to please the ‘disloyal’ Irish? However, Asquith continued to home that Home Rule would be a first step towards a wider devolution.

Saturday, 5 March 2016

The Liberals in power: 3. Industrial disputes and the suffragettes

'Strange death'

In 1935 the journalist George Dangerfield wrote of the ‘strange death of Liberal England’. Roy Jenkins has also noted the government’s ‘strange ailments’. What went so wrong with a government elected in a landslide victory that brought about so many major reforms?

The extent of the government’s problems can be seen from the summer of 1911. It was in the middle of the Agadir crisis (the Germans sent a gunboat to Morocco and until the dispute was resolved in October, Europe seemed on the brink of war) and at the same time a railway strike which paralysed the North and the Midlands.  This is symptomatic of a rash of troubles that beset the Asquith government in the years before 1914. It was dealing with multiple crises and often was often on the back foot.

During 1912 and 1913 the authority of the government was diminished by the Marconi scandal which involved four ministers.
Both Lloyd George and Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney-General, had engaged in share transactions in the American Marconi Company, which while not dishonest, were unwise, as the government later awarded contracts to the British Marconi Company.
The investigation was unpleasantly tinged with anti-Semitism.

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

The Liberals in power: 2 The 'People's Budget' and the fight with the Lords

This was the title Lloyd George gave his 1909 budget and it sprang from his temperance, Nonconformist background. It was in part the product of the government’s greatly increased need for income: the Dreadnought building programme and the increased social security costs. Because it was also extremely redistributivist, it was not a traditional Liberal budget (Gladstone would have regarded it with horror).

Friday, 26 February 2016

Conservative disaster: Liberal victory

From Salisbury to Balfour

In January 1901 Victoria died and was succeeded by Edward VII.  In May 1902 Lord Salisbury's Conservative government signed a  treaty with the Boers, ending the Anglo-Boer War.  On 11 July 1902 he retired, having served the fourth-longest premiership after Walpole, Pitt the Younger and Liverpool. He was also the last Prime Minister to sit in the Lords. He died at Hatfield, the Cecil family home, in August 1903. The end of his premiership can be seen as a symbolic marker of the end of the Victorian period.
A, J. Balfour

There was never any doubt that Salisbury would be succeeded by his nephew, A. J. Balfour hence [possibly] the phrase, ‘Bob’s your uncle’ - though it might have an earlier origin).  Joseph Chamberlain, the only possible rival, was unacceptable to large sections of Conservative opinion (and was recovering from a fall through a plate glass window at the time).

The Liberals in power (1906-14): 1. The problem of the Lords

David Lloyd George
c. 1911

The Lords oppose the government

Though the Liberal government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman  had been elected in a landslide victory, it made little initial progress in its general legislative programme. During the election campaign (in a speech delivered at Nottingham on 15 January 1906) the Conservative leader, A. J. Balfour had said:
‘the great Unionist Party should still control, whether in power or whether in Opposition, the destinies of this great Empire’.
This was no empty threat. At the beginning of the new Parliament there were 602 peers, including 25 bishops. Of these only 88 were Liberals, 124 were Liberal Unionists and 355 were Conservatives. In December 1908 only 102 peers took the Liberal whip as against 459 Unionists.

For several decades the Lords had been developing a theory of ‘plebiscitary democracy’ – asserting their right to hold up controversial bills until they had received the explicit endorsement of the electorate. In 1893 a Conservative dominated Lords had rejected the second Home Rule Bill. Between 1909 and 1909 the Upper Chamber rejected or wrecked ten Liberal bills.

The Education Bill: In April 1906 the government introduced an Education Bill, designed to appeal to its Nonconformist supporters by restricting Anglican privileges. It was its flagship piece of legislation and it dominated the 1906 Parliament:
1. All denominational schools receiving rate aid were to be taken over by the local authorities;
2. Teachers were to be appointed by the authorities without any sectarian tests and not be allowed to give religious instruction;
3. Religious instruction was to be limited to two days a week in transferred church schools (though concessions were made in areas where 80% of the parents requested them).
But the bill never passed into law as the Lords amended it, after consultations between Balfour and Lansdowne, the Unionist leader in the Lords, in a way that completely overturned its provisions. The bill was withdrawn in December.

Outraged, Campbell-Bannerman considered an immediate dissolution with a campaign on the straight issue of the supremacy of the Commons. But cabinet opinion was firmly opposed.

The Trades Disputes Bill: The Lords did not destroy the Trades Disputes Bill, because a prior mandate had been sought. Brought in under pressure from the Labour members, it granted unions immunity from legal action. In future a trade union was not liable for civil wrongs committed on its behalf. This established that peaceful picketing was legal even when its objects were to incite to breach of contract. But the Lords destroyed a plural voting bill, a major item in the government’s legislative programme. The result was that after a year in office the Liberals, for all their huge majority, had achieved little.

The King’s speech in February 1907 referred to
‘unfortunate differences between the two Houses’.
He was not exaggerating. A Licensing bill was postponed and replaced as the main legislative business of the early part of the session by compromise measures on Ireland - but they had to be withdrawn for lack of support.

It was a horrible paradox for the Liberals. They were being pressed by the Labour members to pass laws they did not really approve of and were prevented by the Conservatives in the Lords from passing their own legislation.‘ And they were beginning to suffer electorally as there were sharp swings to the Unionists and Labour in by-elections. In 1908 Lloyd George declared:
‘The House of Lords is not the watchdog of the constitution. It is Mr Balfour’s poodle.’
There were two possible solutions to the problem of conflict between the two Houses

  1. To alter the composition of the Upper House, mainly by reducing the hereditary element. This had strong conservative elements, for a reformed second chamber would be on stronger moral and political grounds in applying the brake on the first chamber. (Does this sound familiar?! ) For this reason in 1907 some Tory peers introduced a (failed) bill to alter drastically the composition of the House: the hereditary peers were to elect a quarter of their number to represent them and the places so vacated would be filled by the government of the day with life peers. But if passed, it would weaken the power of the Commons and invalidate its claim to be the sole representative of the will of the people.
  2. Campbell-Bannerman’s preferred solution was to curb the power of the peers by ruling that a bill passed three times by the Commons would become law without the consent of the Lords.

Asquith becomes Prime Minister

H. H. Asquith
Early in 1908 Campbell-Bannerman’s health began to fail. He resigned on 3 April), and died two weeks later). On 4 April the King summoned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Herbert Henry Asquith to Biarritz.

Asquith was succeeded at the Treasury by David Lloyd George, a man born outside the British elite. He had been an effective and high profile President of the Board of Trade: he had settled a threatened rail strike, had prepared legislation for the establishment of the Port of London Authority to take over the management of a vast area of London’s dockyards. The new President of the Board of Trade was Winston Churchill. The elevation of these two men gave the government a new aggressiveness which goaded the Conservatives into a succession of political errors. But all was not well for the government. Churchill, standing for re-election on his appointment as President of the Board of Trade was defeated in North-West Manchester and forced to find another seat in Dundee.

The Licensing Bill

The session of 1908 was intended to give the temperance movement its due with a Licensing Bill. The main provision was the establishment of a fixed ratio of the number of public houses to the population in each licensing area. The Liberals had as clear a mandate for this as they had for their Education Bill (both bills appealed to the same constituency) but this was not a popular cause and the brewers were a powerful lobby. It was fought hard in the Commons and the Lords declined to give it a second reading.

The government was now in a dilemma. It had little to show for its impressive electoral victory. An economic slump meant that unemployment was rising and the Unionist cause of tariff reform (now official policy) was becoming more popular. As in 1907 the government was beginning to lose by-elections.

Economically the government was pulled in two directions. Since going to the Exchequer in 1905 Asquith had laid the groundwork for a taxation policy designed to finance social reform, notably old age pensions. But it was faced with the possible further increase in arms expenditure. The Liberals had cut defence spending when they came to power but in 1908 they were faced with fierce pressure from the Dreadnought building programme (see later post). The potential conflict between social reform and defence spending was painful and divisive for Liberals.

Old age pensions

Pensions were the main plank of the 1908 budget. The pensions bill received its second reading in the Commons on 15 June 1908. It was introduced by Lloyd George (though Asquith had devised the scheme) and came to be popularly known as ‘the Lloyd George’.

The measure was a disappointment to those who had wanted universal pensions. It was finally agreed that: British citizens over 70 with incomes of up to £21 pa would receive the full non-contributory pension of £13 p.a. (5s per week) for single persons and of £19.10.00 (7s. 6d. per week) for married couples. Incomes of up to £31.10s would qualify for a pension reduced by one shilling a week for each shilling of income above £21. The minimum pension would be one shilling. Those with incomes as low as £26 p.a. would receive only 3s a week (this caused Labour members to vote against the amendment). Asquith estimated that about half a million persons would qualify for the pensions and that the annual cost would be £6m; but by 1912 the government was spending £11.7m. and by 1914 £12.5m.

The pensions provisions reduced some peers to paroxyms of anger. The former Liberal leader, Lord Rosebery described them as
'so prodigal of expenditure as likely to undermine the whole fabric of the Empire'. 
The scheme’s main defect in the eyes of its critics was the high qualifying age. The Labour Party began campaigning for improved pensions: a minimum of 5s non-means-tested and applied to men and women of 60. But for all its inadequacy it was a milestone in social legislation, since it made it easier for the aged poor to avoid the workhouse and avoided the language of opprobrium associated with the poor law.

On 1 January 1909 ('Pensions Day') c. 490,000 people drew a pension – a relatively low number because of those disqualified from entitlement (paupers, some criminals, aliens and the wives of aliens and those deemed guilty of ‘habitual failure to work’). Most of the recipients were women. All had to learn the new procedure of completing forms available at the post office. The costs rapidly escalated and the numbers of pensioners rose after the removal of the pauper disqualification in March 1911.

Other social legislation

In 1909 Churchill's Board of Trade  produced the Trade Boards Act of 1909, which set up boards for the four trades in which, largely owing to the lack of trade unions, ‘sweated’ labour was found to be prevalent. The boards were to fix minimum wages, which then had to be confirmed by the Board of Trade.

In 1908 the Coal Mines Act had established a statutory eight-hour day for miners, the first occasion in which the working hours of adult males had been limited by statute. However this was poorly received in some collieries where the miners were already working less than eight hours.

Saturday, 20 February 2016

Late-Victorian leisure

In addition to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, have consulted the following books for this post:
Judith Flanders, Consuming Passions: Leisure and Pleasure in Victorian Britain (London Harper Perennial, 2007)
Ruth Goodman, How to be a Victorian (London: Penguin, 2013)
G. R. Searle, A New England? Peace and War 1886-1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004)

A drawing of Blackpool Tower
1893, the year before it opened

Living standards

The increase in leisure activities at the end of the nineteenth century was the consequence of rising standards of living. Between 1882 and 1899 prices fell while wages rose, bringing about an improvement in average real wages of over a third, and increasing the disposable income of the housewife.  The better-off working-class families were able to purchase a more varied range of foodstuffs, including meat as well as bread. Alcohol consumption was falling from over 15 per cent of the family budget in 1876 to under 9 per cent in 1901. Health also improved, as most communities now had access to clean water, though TB remained the main killer of the adult population.

As productivity increased the trend was towards a shorter working week and the Saturday half day became more common.  The pattern of the week changed, as the workers exchanged the relatively leisurely Mondays for free time on Saturday afternoons.

The rise in living standards and the increased availability of leisure led to the creation of a distinctively organized ‘leisure industry’ that transformed many areas of social life.

Saturday, 6 February 2016

Women and the law


There is a good summary here of some of the legal issues raised in this blog.

The legal status of English women was defined by the centuries’-old common law, a system built up by custom, precedent and legal judgement as well as statute. Under the common law English women took their husbands’ names – a practice that was not found in Scotland or the rest of Europe. But the common law also gave some women rights not available on the Continent.

Contrary to popular belief, English common law never stated that wives were the property of their husbands - even if many men might have acted as if this were the case! Wife-sales happened from time to time but they were never legal and were often simply an unofficial, mutually-agreed divorce. See here for more details.

However, before 1882 the law made a clear distinction between married and unmarried women. An unmarried woman or a widow was a 'feme sole' with the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. She had the same legal freedoms as a man. However a married woman was defined as a 'feme covert'. She took her husband's name in marriage and by the end of the eighteenth century the term 'Mrs' was coming to describe a married woman only, and the usage 'Mrs John Smith' to describe a married woman was becoming customary. See here for more information. A married woman  could not own separate property or enter into contracts and if she had any debts her husband was answerable for them. Her status was defined by the jurist William Blackstone:
'By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing.'

Friday, 5 February 2016

Women and education


From the 1870 Act working-class girls received the same education as boys. It was among the wealthier social groups that educational provision differed.

The reform of the education of middle-class girls began in the 1840s, stimulated by a variety of factors, including the rising wealth and expectations of the middle class, the belief that the mother as the first educator of her children needed a sound education, and an increase in the number of middle-class unmarried women. Middle-class women continued to be educated by governesses but schools were now beginning to offer a more academic education.

In 1848 Queen’s College in Harley Street became the first institution in the world to grant academic qualifications to women. 

1850 saw the foundation of the North London Collegiate School by Miss Frances Buss (1827-94); in 1854 Cheltenham Ladies College was founded; the second principal was Miss Dorothea Beale (1831-1906). In 1871: Maria Grey set up the National Union for Improving the Education of Women. In 1872 the Girls’ Public Day School Trust established.

Women and employment

How depicted?
The standard images of Victorian women are the 'angel in the house', the factory girl, and the domestic servant (and possibly Florence Nightingale's nurses).  Women in Victorian art are usually portrayed as wives subordinate to their husbands and rarely in paid employment. (The exception here is the series of photographs the barrister Arthur Munby took of the domestic servant Hannah Cullwick – whom he subsequently married – and other working-class women.) 

Hannah Cullwick (1833-1909)
photographed by Arthur Munby

Elizabeth Gaskell’s Mary Barton portrays the life of a Victorian working girl. Significantly, she is confronted with severe family problems – an aunt driven to prostitution, a father on strike, and she is threatened with seduction by the employer’s son.

Ellen Grounds, the Wigan 'pit brew lass'
photographed with Arthur Mundy and
in her Sunday best.

Moralists fretted about female employment. Ashley (Lord Shaftesbury) believed married women should not work outside the home. The social researcher Henry Mayhew highlighted the dangers of underpaid needlewomen turning to prostitution. The world outside the home was often seen as a dangerous place for women.

Saturday, 23 January 2016

Education in the nineteenth century

Maths class at the Cable Street Board School
Eric J. Evans (The Forging of the Modern State, 3rd edition, p. 290) has written:
‘The spectre of an irreligious, overcrowded, and brutalized working class herded together in monstrously multiplying towns … haunted more than the humanitarian reformers’ and educational reform became an urgent question.'
By the early 1830s about one and a half million pupils were enrolled in schools – and these schools were extremely varied.

Educational provision comprised:
  • a handful of public schools for aristocrats and the upper middle classes,
  • a number of endowed grammar schools in the older towns,
  • Sunday schools
  • charity schools.
There were various kinds of charity schools, ranging from the large foundations of the 1690s to small village establishments. Some charity schools catered for middle-class children whose parents could not afford anything better. The most notorious is the Clergy Daughters’ School at Cowan Bridge in Lancashire, attended by Charlotte Brontë and her two elder sisters. It was renamed Lowood  and described in vivid and unforgiving detail in Jane Eyre.

Working-class politics and the rise of the Labour party

The creation of a working-class electorate posed challenges to the Conservatives and the Liberals, in Europe as well as Britain. In the last three decades of the nineteenth century Socialist parties were founded on the Continent. The Marxist-inclined German Social Democrats, founded in 1875, were the most influential of these parties. 

Socialist ideas met with more resistance in Britain. Most British Socialists were not working class and were frequently hostile to the unions. Henry Hyndman, the Cambridge graduate who, along with Eleanor Marx, founded the Marxist Social Democratic Federation (SDF) in 1883, openly despised what he saw as their narrowly reformist agenda. Other middle-class socialists were William Morris, leader of the Socialist League and the anarchist Edward Carpenter.  The Fabians, founded in 1884, were middle class intellectuals (George Bernard ShawSidney and Beatrice Webb, Hubert Bland) with little contact with trade unionism. (Bland's wife is much better known!)

However, these were a minority. The British trade union movement was less ideological than its continental counterparts.

The 'new unionism'

For a while it looked as if working-class voters and activists would support the Liberals. However, Liberal constituencies were slow to adopt working-class candidates. The Liberals were also reluctant to adopt socialist policies such as the eight-hour day, being preoccupied instead with issues such as land control and public control of denominational schools rather than with workers' rights.

Monday, 18 January 2016

The fall of Parnell

This post owes a great deal to Paul Bew's entry on Parnell in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. You may be able to access it through your library website.

After 1886, with the failure of Gladstone's bill and the subsequent Liberal defeat in the general election, Home Rule remained the polarizing issue in British politics.

From March 1887 the Chief Secretary for Ireland was Salisbury’s nephew, Arthur Balfour, who was determined to assert the rule of law in that country. This was also the policy of his uncle, who believed that the Irish must take ‘a good licking’. Balfour stiffened the provisions of the Crimes Bill and subjected disaffected areas to a kind of martial law, under which Nationalist politicians, Roman Catholic priests and the poet Wilfred Scawen Blunt were imprisoned. In September 1887 an illegal demonstration took place at Mitchelstown, Co. Cork. The police panicked and fired into an unarmed crowd, killing three civilians and wounding others.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Ireland disrupts British politics

The debate over Home Rule 

The election of 1874 returned a spectacular number of fifty-nine MPs to Westminster who were committed to 'Home Rule', a demand for the repeal of the Act of Union of 1800. From 1878 their leader was an unlikely one -  the Protestant Irish landlord, Charles Stewart Parnell. His tactic of deliberately obstructing the business of the Commons led to the first impositions of the parliamentary 'guillotine'.

Charles Stewart Parnell (1841-91)
the 'uncrowned king of Ireland until
his fall in 1890 over a sex scandal

According to the great Irish historian, Roy Foster, the politics of Parnellism meant that 
'Home Rule was converted under a charismatic leader to an aggressive political campaign of threat and bluff, based on …a disciplined, pledge-bound, dictatorially organised party machine.…The Home Rulers would institutionalise Anglophobia, play publicity politics by demonstrating ostentatious "independence" on foreign policy issues, and emphasise the rhetoric of separatism when it suited them.' Modern Ireland (1989), pp. 398-9

From 1879 the Irish Land League disrupted the life of the Irish countryside in a campaign of implicit (sometimes explicit) rural violence that lasted for three years
Land League poster
and was as near to a revolutionary movement as anything seen in the United Kingdom between 1800 and 1914. Sixty-seven people were killed between 1879 and 1882.

One of the most prominent victims of the Land League policy was Captain Charles Boycott, sent to 'moral Coventry' for bidding for a farm that had previously been held by an evicted tenant.

Gladstone's second administration (1880-85) responded with a mixture of stick and carrot: a Coercion Act designed to restore order, and a land reform that provided tenants with the ‘3 Fs’: fair rents, fixity of tenure, and ‘free sale’ (of their holdings). This was the beginning of a movement that was to transform Ireland into a land of peasant proprietors.

Sunday, 10 January 2016

History of liberalism

John Stuart Mill, theorist of liberalism
For those who missed Anne McElvoy's very interesting history of liberalism on Radio 4, the link to all the programmes is here

Friday, 8 January 2016

Gladstone, Disraeli, and the creation of a mass electorate

Gladstone in old age

Politics in the 1870s and early 1880s was dominated by the figures of William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. Both rose from middle-class backgrounds to lead their respective parties, and both presided over major reforms to the electoral system. 

The Second Reform Act

In 1859 Gladstone, previously a Peelite, now a Liberal, joined Palmerston’s government as Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the mid-1860s he had come to accept the necessity of further political reform, but everyone knew this could not happen while Palmerston was still alive. The old man had set his face against further reform and as long as he was Prime Minister there would be no changes to the Reform Act of 1832.

The first Earl Russell, the former Lord John Russell
Palmerston died in October 1865, shortly after winning another election for the Liberals, and he was succeeded by Earl Russell (the former Lord John Russell). Gladstone remained Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also became Leader of the Commons. Because the Conservative leader, the earl of Derby was in the Lords, Disraeli was the Tory spokesman in the Commons.

In March 1866 Gladstone introduced a bill for modest electoral reform, designed to enfranchise the ‘respectable’ working class. This was opposed by the Conservatives and some Liberals (whom the radical Liberal, John Bright derisively called 'Adullamites'. The bill was passed but by a very narrow majority. In June the bill was defeated on a wrecking amendment and Russell resigned. The Queen then sent for the Conservative leader.

Edward Stanley-Smith, 14th earl of Derby

For the third time in his political life, Derby found himself head of a minority Conservative administration, with Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House. But the change of government did not mean that the reform issue was going away. With this in mind, Derby wrote to Disraeli: 
‘I am coming reluctantly to the conclusion that we shall have to deal with the question of reform’.
By early 1867 the Conservative government was in deep crisis. Derby and Disraeli believed that some reform was necessary but they were a minority government and they faced cabinet resignations and a backbench revolt. The only way to survive was to bring in a measure of reform. On 18 March Disraeli introduced a bill giving household suffrage in the boroughs, with other clauses, derisively known as 'fancy franchises' designed to ensure that the middle classes retained their political dominance. At this stage he did not want anything too radical.