Home History 203 lecture list Wallace G. Mills Hist. 203 13 Britain in the 20th C

Britain in the 20th Century



- by the turn of century, several issues were coming to a head; the British managed to get through two world wars and far-reaching social change without revolution, although there was certainly violence and bloodshed in Ireland. We want to exam 3 topics especially, although it must be conceded that none of them was resolved completely or permanently:

  1. Female emancipation and women's suffrage--the franchise (right to vote).
  2. Social reform
  3. Irish problem
1 Female Emancipation
- this was a long, drawn out struggle and one taking place at several levels; also, to understand what was happening, it is very important to keep the class differences in mind. Working class women lived very different lives and had different problems as compared to middle and upper class women. Most of the action and goals were by middle and some upper class women, but we shall note a couple of issues on which middle class women worked even though it affected working class women almost exclusively.

Factory and mines Acts
- there were a series of protective factory and mines laws in the 1830s and 1840s which affected only working class women for only they did such physical labour; these laws limited the hours of work of women and children and prohibited some kinds of work (e.g., underground work in the mines) entirely. Women's historians argue, with some validity, that these laws do not really count as emancipation (although they certainly alleviated a few of the worst abuses of working class women); the laws were paternalistic and their assumptions were 'sexist' (i.e., the assumption was that the proper roles and functions for women were traditional ones--wife and mother). 'A woman's place is in the home'; keep them barefoot and pregnant!

- the feeling was that factory and mine work were not only taking women from what were their proper roles but were also doing damage to the younger generation (the health of mothers affected that of their children and the latter were too often left unsupervised and even neglected); thus, modern women's historians often dismiss this legislation as more concerned for children and husbands than with the welfare of women themselves. The legislators, they say, were not really opposed to women being treated as drudges but preferred them to be household drudges rather than factory drudges.

- there is a good deal of truth in such assertions; however, it should be noted that conditions in factories were often abysmal and some of the concern about women's health was genuine and well founded. Thus, these feminist historians may be projecting late 20th century concerns about equality of employment opportunities back into the 1840s.

- however, there is another feature of the legislation in that women and children were used as a means of alleviating the burdens on men, especially in textile industry. Laisser-faire theory asserted that in a 'free market' all men were free. Thus, protective legislation was unnecessary and undesirable because it would be a government interference in the 'natural laws' of the 'free market'. Women and children were not mature or 'free' agents, and therefore, protection for them could be accepted. However, limiting the hours of women and children automatically helped men because the men frequently could not work the machines without the former; nevertheless, we should not exaggerate and say that helping the men was the main reason the laws were passed.

- working class women, nonetheless, did continue to work in factories. In fact, almost all working class women worked before marriage at least. Many continued to work outside the home after marriage because their families needed the income. Later in the 19th C, it did become a mark of status in better off working class families (skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen) for the wives not to work outside.

Middle Class Job Opportunities
 - for middle class women in the 19th C, there were very few 'respectable' jobs or jobs that would not drag down their status--i.e., not just 'moral' respectability but also 'social' respectability. Women were expected to marry and the lot of a spinster (a woman who had never been married) was not a very happy one unless she had independent means (then she could always get a husband, but would lose her money and her independence). For the most part, spinsters-- 'the maiden aunt'--were an object of ridicule and were usually dependent on relatives. Some, whose families had provided them with an education, could become governesses, but this was often not very satisfactory; while the status of governesses was above that of servants, they were usually not considered equals of the family. In the 'Upstairs/Downstairs' world, they were in a kind of twilight zone (often eating by themselves or with the children), not only lonely but also, as with servant girls, subject to the sexual advances and harassment by the family males. Only late in the 19 C., did the implementation of universal primary education begin to open up middle class jobs as teachers. A few also had shops, especially for women's hats and clothing (i.e., in business).

- there was a long struggle by women to break into male bastions or to make certain jobs more respectable; Florence Nightingale and nursing is an example of upgrading a disreputable occupation to respectability. Before Nightingale, nursing was a working class occupation, at best on a par with charwomen, but often regarded as little better or indistinguishable from prostitution.

- later in the century, there were attempts to get admission to universities and into the professions-- medicine, law, etc. In this, they were confronted with great resistance and hostility from men. The invention of the typewriter did begin slowly to open some clerical jobs as women took to it more than men, but there was still great social resistance to middle class women working in offices.

- these were all part of the attempt to find alternatives to marriage as the only respectable and viable occupation for women.

Revolt Against Restraints and Excessive Child-Bearing
- this was a more subtle and secret struggle: certainly, from the 1860s, there was a growing reaction of upper class women against excessive child-bearing; there was a clear decline in the number of children borne by women, first in the upper classes and then by middle class women. Because the dissemination of birth-control information was illegal, it had to be done clandestinely and we have little information on birth-control mechanisms; a type of condom was being made from sheep or animal gut as early as the 18th C, but it does not seem to have been a major means. One young woman recorded a conversation with Margot Asquith (wife of Herbert Asquith, the Liberal prime minister) in which Margot described coitus interruptus. Dissemination of birth-control information to lower class women was taken up later as part of the emancipation movement, trying to alleviate the burden of having one pregnancy after another when they couldn't afford to feed the children they had; however, doing this remained against the law until well into the 20th C and women doing this were sometimes prosecuted.

- there was also a revolt against other social restraints and conventions (e.g., against long confinements during pregnancy); a revolt against the wasp-waisted corsets and other restraining clothing; women began athletics and more physical activities--riding bicycles, playing tennis and badminton and going for long walks (these require less restricting clothing). Some daring young women began to smoke in public (some women had used tobacco as snuff, but did not smoke in public).

Political Activities

- women began to be involved in campaigns to get changes in the law and in rights for women; again, most of the women active were middle and upper class and the issues were often those which affected these women most, but as we shall see, they also involved issues which affected working class women primarily.

Suffrage Movement (Suffragettes)
- we should perhaps clarify terms: there are several terms used to refer to the right to vote--the suffrage and the franchise are 2 of the most important. 'Suffragist' can be and was used to describe anyone, male or female (especially the moderates), who supported the idea of extending the vote to women; 'suffragette' was used only for women and usually for the more radical ones--those who turned to more direct confrontation and even violence.

- by the beginning of century, the suffrage movement had reached widespread proportions and can be said to have become a mass movement. Members in the movement were able to organise huge rallies and marches of mostly women to demand the suffrage. However, as years went by, frustration with lack of progress led some women to the point of advocating and carrying out civil disobedience and even violence: breaking windows, throwing rocks at trains, jam in mailboxes, picketing and disrupting parliament, post offices and political rallies (however, although they did extensive property damage, they never really engaged in what can legitimately be called terrorism although they were accused of it). The most important leader of the more radical suffragettes was Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) and her daughters, Sylvia and Christabel, in her Women's Social and Political Union; she was constantly in prison and on hunger strikes 1908-1914.

- this movement was a logical extension of 2 trends:
  1. successive Reform Acts had extended the suffrage to the vast majority of the male population-- arguments for and against extension to women were much the same as had been advanced in earlier debates regarding working class men (arguments against included: that they were uneducated, that they didn't understand politics, that they were emotional and likely to be swayed by demagogues, etc.); the process of extending the franchise was now about 75 years old and the sky had not fallen.
  2. female emancipation movement . Changing objectionable laws and passing new ones could only be done by parliament. Thus, achievement of many aims of the movement required political influence and power; the acquisition of the franchise seemed a necessary prerequisite for many changes. Also, it was an obvious area of inequality and an affront to women.
- civil disobedience and violence got attention for the movement, but they also brought a reaction. Also, many women disagreed with these tactics and the suffrage movement was split. As a result, little had been achieved before the war. In fact, the movement appeared to be losing ground in the three or four years before the war.

- the violence created a cycle that took up time and energy but produced little. Many women were arrested. The women went on hunger strikes; the government did not want martyrs dying of starvation so they instituted forced feeding for hunger strikers who were getting weak. This was an extremely brutal and dangerous procedure. Many subjected to the procedure were injured and some of the women died. The government responded with the 'cat and mouse' act; women who might be in danger of dying from the hunger strikes were released, but as soon as they recovered, they would be arrested again.

Effects of World War I
- the war had really dramatic effects. Women reacted very strongly. Mrs. Pankhurst, for example, announced that the franchise and other political issues should be put aside for the duration of the war. She put her newspaper and organising skills to work organising women volunteers for various kinds of war work. Young middle and upper class women began to volunteer to do all kinds of work to replace men so they could enlist to fight in the war.(drivers, nurses, police, in factories--a few even tried to learn skilled blue-collar trades). While the majority of women in these occupations were working class women, the fact that some of them were middle and upper class was very important in breaking down the social barriers that had hindered the latter. It also gave these higher class women a good deal of confidence because the older conventions had really projected a stereotype that women from these backgrounds were incapable of doing anything useful.

- there was a great retreat after the war as men returned. In fact, it had been part of the bargain the government had made with trade unionists who were resisting changes, what was called dilution (i. e., jobs were broken down into small, separate tasks that could be learned quickly; this allowed unskilled women and teenagers to replace more highly skilled male workers); the bargain was that the large scale employment of women in what had been male jobs would only take place during the war. At the end of the war, everything would return to the prewar situation. Also, large-scale unemployment developed at the end of the war and it was felt that men, as the providers for whole families, should be preferred; as a result, most of the women in manufacturing were replaced.

- nevertheless, the situation was never completely reversed, and these 'beachheads' were later expanded; e.g., even before war, women 'type writers' (i.e. typists) were beginning to appear in offices. During the war with the massive increase in government bureaucracy which occurred, women had filled huge numbers of clerical jobs, even in the military. After the war, women increasingly began to displace men as clerks, secretaries, etc. to the point where women practically displaced men entirely and thus began to create what some now call a 'job ghetto' in clerical occupations.

- also, this was the beginning of the decline in domestic service as other employment began to open and women showed that they much preferred almost any kind of alternative; many were forced back after 1918 and especially during the depression, but they deserted in massive numbers again during WW 2 and have never gone back.

- women also pressured for a more direct role in the war, against the very strong opposition of the generals. Nurses were already in the military, but the military were reluctant to expand the numbers until they were forced to. A couple of women doctors were turned down and went overseas; one in Belgium pioneered the life-saving technique of locating first aid stations very close behind the lines. Another went all the way to Serbia to serve there. Eventually, and very reluctantly, women were formed into auxiliaries to the military to do other jobs in France (clerks, ambulance drivers, and menial tasks of cleaning and cooking in hospitals, offices and officers messes, etc.). Some of these were wounded and killed in artillery and air attacks.

- in 1918, as part of a further extension which made universal manhood suffrage at age 21, the franchise was extended to women 30 years of age and over. The argument for the higher age for women was that with the disproportion of women in the population (increased by the high mortality of young men in the war), women voters would outnumber the men and the latter would be, or at least would feel, disfranchised. It was not until 1928 that this was changed and women were given the same rights as men (Mrs Pankhurst died 2 months before the change came into effect).

- the war was the element which broke the dam on the suffrage for women. Asquith, prime minister 1908-16 and a long-time opponent of votes for women, referred specifically to the contributions of women to the war effort in saying that there could no longer be any justification for denying the vote to them.

- also war and associated activities broke down many barriers and social restraints; this showed up in the apparent freedom of the 'flapper' era--short skirts, bobbed hair, going out in public by themselves, etc. A few went even further to flout the conventions by living with men but not marrying them; this was among middle and upper class women where such behaviour would have made them outcasts before the war.

- however, momentum for change did not carry too far and tended to dissipate; especially (with the possible exception of prohibition in the U.S.), women never were able to use their new political power to develop specific women's programmes or agendas in politics, although all political parties undoubtedly had to become more sensitive to women's concerns than had been true before.

Some possible explanations:
  1. the real unity of the movement had been broken before the war and was never rebuilt: the differences over the use of violence and confrontation. Class differences could also be divisive; even the Pankhursts had been divided this way as Sylvia broke with her mother and sister, Christebel, to go work in the working class areas of the east end in London pointing out that these women had far more pressing needs and concerns than the franchise.
  2. perhaps too much was expected of the franchise itself; women in the movement failed to realise that other changes would not happen automatically just because women had the franchise.
  3. while women could agree on franchise (and on prohibition to a large extent), often they disagreed on other aspects [These are very similar to serious divisions among women at present regarding issues such as, abortion, the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S., whether mothers with small children should work outside the home, and the conflict between REAL Women and Committee on the Status of Women and other feminists; women have deep and even bitter differences of opinion about what they want.].
  4. the depression in the 1930s tended to suspend the movement; employment contracted and there was a very strong feeling that men with families should have priority, especially before married women.
  5. the second world war brought women out into the labour force again. However, after 1945 especially in North America, there was a sharp reaction and a reemphasis upon family affairs and having children after depression and war. This feeling, which produced the 'baby boom', seemed to continue the suspension of the movement.
- female emancipation, or women's liberation as we call it now, tended to revive only in last two or three decades.

Why the long hiatus? Good question.

3 Irish Problem--Introduction

- the Irish had resisted English domination even before the Protestant Reformation, but with religion mixed in, it became much more severe and endemic. Ireland remained predominantly Catholic after England became predominantly Protestant. Resistance and domination both became much more savage after religion became involved (i.e., during and after Elizabeth I--the savagery of Cromwell's repression especially set the tone for relations ever after).

- the abolition of the Irish Parliament and the union of Ireland into United Kingdom in 1798 had been forced; even many Protestants were unhappy with the union.

- in the 19th C Ireland was over-populated and impoverished; economic development was restricted by law and policies set in London.

- the Catholic majority was dominated by a Protestant minority although political lines were not entirely coincident with religion; disestablishment of the Church of England in Ireland did bring some relief later in the 19th C.

- the main preoccupation bedevilling a change was the strategic problem; this had often been the source of Ireland's troubles. Both the Spanish and the French had in previous centuries tried or threatened to use Ireland as a backdoor through which to attack England, either directly or by encouraging rebellion.

- during the 19th century, there were periodic revolts and a rising tide of violence and terrorism. There was also a group of Irish members of parliament who were working to achieve Home Rule for Ireland. Home Rule was the idea to return the governing of Ireland to an Irish legislature; this could be seen either as restoring the situation to the pre-1798 relationship or as granting to Ireland the same degree of self-government in local affairs as was enjoyed in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Cape Colony. It was not independence as the imperial parliament would still control international relations and matters of external trade.

- finally in the 1880s, the Liberal leader, William Gladstone was convinced that Home Rule was the best solution; he made two attempts to pass a bill. Both were thrown out by the Conservative dominated House of Lords; the second attempt in 1894 also split the Liberal Party.

- thus in the period after 1906 when the Liberals again came to power depending on the Irish Home Rule Party to maintain a majority, it was clear that Home Rule was not possible unless the House of Lords was reconstructed or its veto overcome.

- this coincided with the House of Lords blockage of social reform which we'll discuss below; as a result Liberals, Irish Nationalists and Labour Party members all wanted reform of the House of Lords.

2 Social Reform



- laisser-faire theories had long inhibited much change (i.e., as we have noted, laisser-faire theory argued that government should not interfere with the natural laws and especially should not be involved in redistributing wealth by raising taxes from one section of the population and spending the money on programmes which benefited other sections of the population. However, a few improvements had been made:
- nevertheless, these were only dents in laisser-faire. By the turn of century, there were substantial voices calling for new and more significant change--both Liberal reformers and Socialists. However, most proponents were convinced that peaceful, constitutional change was desirable and possible (i.e., they were not advocating revolution).

- trade unionists had formed their own political movement, the Labour Representative Council and middle class intellectuals of moderate socialist views had formed the Fabian Society (included George Bernard Shaw and the Webbs, Sidney and Beatrice). About the turn of the century, these had joined together to form the Labour Party. However, the Independent Labour Party, which was much more socialist than the trade union Labour Representative Council, still continued to exist until after WW 1. The two tried not to run against each other and to cooperate as much as possible in elections.

Direct Action (Syndicalism)
 - there were, however, some Marxist socialists and syndicalists among trade unionists who rejected evolutionary political change in favour of 'direct action' and revolution.

- syndicalists wanted to use strikes (especially general strikes), demonstrations and massive disruptions to secure not just improved wages and working conditions (the 'bread and butter' issues which unions usually concentrated on) but also to secure much broader social reforms and even to bring the downfall of the existing system; some were definitely anarchist and therefore were eager to reduce or destroy government entirely.

- syndicalists were a relatively minor influence in Britain (as contrasted with France, Italy and Spain on the continent).

- major incidents were their attempts to organise unskilled workers (e.g. dock workers, seamen); most older British unions had been by and for skilled or at least, semi-skilled workers. Unskilled workers had less leverage because they could be easily replaced and they had made virtually no progress in unionising themselves.

- there were several violent strikes and confrontations in early 20th century (mostly because employers and the government reacted with violence and repression to attempts to form trade unions), but not the assassinations such as were carried out on the continent.

Content and Background of Social Reform
- social reform was not a monopoly of socialists; in fact, the majority of reformers were reform liberals, but there were even some conservatives who took up this cause. Social reform involved a number of aspects: concern about inadequate income, especially when sickness or unemployment rendered working class families destitute (in fact, unemployment tended to be persistently high throughout much of the 19th C and becoming worse during the recurring depressions), grossly inadequate and unhealthy housing in slums, destitution in old age, inadequate education.

- for some conservatives who were imperialists, there was growing concern (especially after the recruitment for the war in South Africa revealed so many men who were unfit and stunted) about the effects of poverty on the ability of Britain to remain a military and economic power. They wanted to improve social conditions so that there would be a good supply of soldiers and healthy young women to reproduce the future generations.

- for the liberal reformers, many of whom were Liberals, concern for the welfare of the individual remained a core preoccupation; they wanted greater equality of opportunity and better education to develop individual potentialities.

- many social reformers were also concerned about inherited privilege and wealth and about the inequalities arising from that. The first step taken in this regard in the 1890s was the introduction of death duties by William Harcourt, the Liberal. Death duties (inheritance taxes) were rooted in David Ricardo's idea of the 'unearned increment'; the rationale was that society had the right to recapture a portion of the 'unearned increment' accruing to increased value of property and that the appropriate time for this recapture was at the time that property was being transferred from one generation in a family to the next. This was, of course, redistribution of wealth, albeit on a small scale.

- increasingly, the social reformers were investigating society; they began conducting social surveys late in the 19th century (Charles Booth, who had been active in the 'white slave' investigation, pioneered this kind of investigation into conditions in the London slums; his niece, Beatrice Potter--she later married Sydney Webb--assisted). Before this, little was known by the upper and middle classes about slum conditions and how the poor actually lived. These investigators were concerned to expose conditions because they believed in 'progress' and in the possibility of improving conditions in society.

- they began to challenge the notion that working people were poor because of their own failures; they pointed out that much poverty was a result of economic factors and fluctuations over which individuals had no control. This led to the idea that society had a responsibility to assist those severely affected by general trends in society.

- another long-standing approach in the 19th C., partly because it fitted in with laisser-faire ideology, was to encourage 'self-help' to allow individuals to pull themselves up and to provide for themselves (savings banks, education societies--Sunday schools and friendly societies had originated in this way). By the beginning of the 20th C., some had expanded this idea to argue that the government should help people to help themselves by establishing contributory old age pension and unemployment schemes. This was the main element in social reform at the turn of the century and was very modest reform. Please note too that these proposals were within the context of liberalism, even to a good extent, laisser-faire liberalism.

The Lloyd George Budget 1908 and the Constitutional Crisis
- David Lloyd George (Lloyd George is his surname, like a hyphenated surname but without the hyphen) was Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) and the leading social reformer in the Liberal Government.

- the 1908 budget was a landmark as it was probably the first modern budget. Earlier budgets had been relatively simple affairs; there were estimates of expenditures for the coming year and the budget bill merely set the tax rate necessary to raise the required sum.

- in 1908, the budget had several further objectives and covered a number of policies:
  1. the naval crisis was on and more money was needed to build battleships; this was the period of the Dreadnought and the naval race with Germany to build Dreadnought class warships.
  2. the Liberals were also committed to social reforms (pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.) which would also require some funding even though employers and employees would provide most of the contributions. These reforms were likely to be rejected by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords;
  3. the Liberals also wanted to achieve some redistribution of income.
- Lloyd George decided to include all of these things in the budget; this incorporated the idea (although on a very modest scale) that social conditions and the economy could be and should be managed by fiscal and budgetary measures.
- this idea is commonplace today; for example, modern budgets:
- the 1908 budget also brought the introduction of the 'super tax'; this was an extra tax which applied to incomes above 10,000. Previously, it had always been a 'flat tax' (i.e., the same rate no matter what level of income); the super tax was in fact a very modest amount, but it was the first attempt at a graduated or 'progressive' income tax (i.e., the rate increases at higher levels of income).

- the Conservatives were outraged at many of these proposals (in spite of the increased naval spending); they used their majority in the House of Lords to alter the budget bill such as to reject the principle (i.e., they deleted those parts they didn't like). Thus, the Conservatives in the Lords claimed that they hadn't rejected the bill, but they had turned it into something very different; in parliamentary practice, that was a rejection.

- this action broke a constitutional convention dating back to the 17th century and the English Civil War, that the Lords would not interfere with or reject a money bill.

- thus, there was a constitutional crisis and it was no accident. Liberals were getting increasingly frustrated with the Conservatives using the Lords to thwart the programmes and policies of the Liberals on a variety of issues. Lloyd George was clever enough to provoke the crisis on an issue that put the Liberals on the high ground; issues like Irish Home Rule or social reform would not have done this. By provoking the Conservatives in the House of Lords to reject a budget, he made the issue, not social reform, or income redistribution or whatever, but rather the violation of the constitutional convention on money bills. The Liberals argued that the will of the people, as expressed by a majority of the House of Commons, was being thwarted by a tiny minority of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

- the crisis lingered until 1911 with 2 general elections in 1910 being held because of the death of Edward VII and accession of George V. Edward had agreed that if the Liberals won the election, that he would create sufficient peers to pass the Parliament Bill, but when he died, George wanted another election.

- Liberals had the largest number of members but no majority and had to rely upon the support of Labour and Irish Nationalist MPs.

Parliament Act of 1911
- thus the first social reform or 'welfare' measures (limited national pension and unemployment plans, both being funded primarily from contributions from employers and employees, government to provide and pay for administration costs) were not passed until 1911 and little had been implemented before 1914.

Effects of World War I
- the war really changed attitudes in many areas and required massive government actions; it became clear very quickly that the free market was inadequate and inappropriate for fighting a war. The incredible demands of the war meant that material resources and even human resources had to be mobilised, allocated and eventually rationed to make the maximum contribution. The free market could not do this; the 'free market' uses price increases to ration resources but this not only was imperfect but also added to inflation. Thus, laisser-faire had to be set aside during the war.

- previously, Britain had relied upon private charities to deal with the casualties of war, the wounded and disabled as well as the widows and children; the scale of these casualties soon overwhelmed the private charities. Thus, it soon became apparent that only the government could cope with the scale of these problems; there was a massive increase in government programmes to deal with these war-related social problems.

- also, the politicians had promised the veterans 'a world fit for heroes' and there was a very strong feeling that they and their families should not be left unemployed and destitute. Because of the enormous demands of the military and of war industry, unemployment disappeared during the war, but with the return of peace and the post-war depression, there was massive unemployment. The modest contributory unemployment insurance scheme put in place just before the war had to be expanded with much more direct government responsibility and funding. Even before the war, housing had been inadequate and the suspension of virtually all building during the war had allowed it to become worse; as a result, the government also became involved in assisting the building of housing.

- thus, it was really W.W. 1 which laid the foundations of the 'welfare state'; the social reforms contemplated before the war were really insignificant and trivial in comparison with what had been wrought by the war.

- the story was to be the same as a result of W.W. 2; several commissions and planning bodies, the most important of which was the Beveridge commission, were set up to consider the post-war situation. Beveridge was no socialist, but rather a lifelong reform liberal. His report called for a comprehensive social safety net to provide minimum standards of living for all families. By 1945, there was very strong support for change among the public which showed in the defeat of the Conservative Party in the election despite Churchill's massive personal popularity. Labour was preferred because many people felt that they would do more than the Conservatives. The 'welfare state' which Labour put in place 1945-50 (following Beveridge's report quite closely) was thus largely a response to the effects of the two world wars.

3 Irish Problem (continued)
- the Irish problem had remained on the back burner during the constitutional crisis and during passage of the Parliament Act 1911; however, Irish Nationalists, with the promise of Irish Home Rule once reform of the Lords was completed, supported the Liberals.

- Liberals introduced a Home Rule bill which passed the House of Commons in spite of vigorous Conservative opposition early in 1912; it was rejected by the Conservative-controlled House of Lords; this was repeated twice more during the next two years.

- thus, it was clear from 1912 that the year of crisis would be 1914. Ulster Protestants were violently opposed to Home Rule as were the Conservatives. The Protestants began to prepare for violent resistance to Home Rule and the government (i.e., to prepare for rebellion); they began to purchase and stockpile arms and ammunition (government officials intercepted a few shipments but most got through).

- at the same time, it was clear that large portions of the army were very unhappy about the prospect of suppressing any rebellion and disobedience of Irish Protestants; many officers were Conservative and personally opposed to Home Rule. Moreover, some of the Conservative party leaders were openly calling for the army to refuse to obey Liberal Government orders regarding Ireland. This was an extraordinary situation where Conservatives were openly calling for revolt and mutiny by the military.

- this is one of the main reasons for the Liberal Government's distraction in the summer of 1914 as Europe was sliding into war; it seemed that civil war was almost certain in Ireland.

- if Home Rule were implemented, then the Ulster Protestants would rebel and the loyalty of large elements of the army was very uncertain (many officers had publicly promised to resign); if the Liberals failed to implement Home Rule, the Nationalists would rebel at what they could only regard as betrayal and bad faith.

- with the outbreak of war, it was decided to postpone the matter until the end of the war; this action ended the immediate crisis, but the most extreme nationalists, the I.R.A., were fed up; some even felt that the war was the ideal time to achieve independence (shades of so many earlier Irish rebellions; some Nationalists were pro-German and it seemed likely that German intelligence was operating through Ireland--however, nothing much was ever uncovered).

- then came the famous Easter rebellion in 1916 by a handful of Irish nationalists whose main purpose was to make martyrs of themselves; the military authorities who suppressed the rebellion (which was small and not a serious threat) promptly obliged by turning them into martyrs; the English tradition of moderation has often been conspicuous by its absence on matters relating to Ireland.

- as World War I finally ended, both sides in Ireland prepared for their own war; more moderate Liberals had been replaced, by and large, by the hard-line Conservatives.

- as a way of sparing the army which contained supporters of both sides, the government recruited a paramilitary police (it became known as the "Black & Tan" because of the uniforms they wore) which was heavily Ulster Protestant; the civil war which followed was savage.

- finally, under both domestic and foreign pressure (especially from the U.S. with its strong Irish republican lobby), the British government hammered out a compromise; Ireland was divided with complete Home Rule (Dominion status) granted to the south.

- the six Ulster counties in the north retained representation in Westminster and remained part of the United Kingdom, but they were also given a parliament and government to handle local affairs. This Stormont Parliament became notorious for its discriminatory policies and practices against the Catholic minority--not quite as bad as 'apartheid' but close.

- this solution allowed the south to enlarge its autonomy and to achieve complete independence as Eire in 1939; however, it left the six northern counties and the last 30 years or so has seen a replay of past 150 years again. The Catholics in Northern Ireland launched a civil rights campaign similar to the one launched by African Americans in the post 1945 period in the US; the Protestant dominated police acted harshly and soon extremists on both sides began indiscriminate terrorist activities.

- since the beginning of 20th century, it has been the problem and intransigence of the Ulster Protestants which has bedevilled and sabotaged British attempts to resolve the Irish problem, but it is difficult to have sympathy for the fanatics and savages on either side.

General Comments
- the handling of these 3 major areas of change and conflict as well as two world wars and the great depression give some indication of the resiliency and adaptability of the British political system.

- except for Ireland (granted, a big exception), Britain accomplished massive transformations without revolutions or violence.

- even the general strike of 1926 [see the textbook account], which some regarded as revolutionary (Churchill was urging that troops be sent in), was handled carefully and cautiously by the government and ultimately resolved by negotiation.
[This contrasts with the way a Conservative Government in Canada handled the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919! They acted the way the czars might have done; the RCMP were used and acted like Cossacks riding down the street shooting and beating people who were demonstrating. The elite in Winnipeg were screaming, "Kill the reds; kill the reds."]

 - the British miners in 1926 certainly felt sold out by other unionists, but there was no legacy of violence and bloodshed, although certainly bitterness (coal miners strikes in the 1970s and 80s showed that).

- this raises the important point about efficiency and effectiveness of 'democracy', which as a political system, was continually called into question in the inter-war period by critics on both the left and right of the political spectrum.

- fascists and other authoritarians claimed that democracy was not only 'degenerate', but also 'inefficient' and 'ineffective'. Nevertheless, Britain achieved higher rates of mobilisation in both wars than other, more authoritarian nations. Britain had more extensive use of women and a better, fairer system of allocating resources; as a result, Britain achieved higher levels of production and a larger percentage of the economy was devoted to war production and participation than in Germany.

- greater effectiveness may be achieved by authoritarian states over the short-term; e.g., the Nazis did get many Germans back to work in the 1930s because they could launch new programmes quickly. However, what they were doing was using resources which were simply being wasted from lack of use; longer term, the results were not so impressive:
  1. by the late 1930s, the German economy was starting to experience serious problems (inflation was growing and standards of living were falling or barely holding their own).
  2. the apparatus of control and coercion was creating an economic drag (large numbers of people were incarcerated in concentration camps and although they were forced to do labour, it was very inefficient labour; large numbers of people were being used as guards and custodians for the camps and were making no significant contributions to the economy themselves).
  3. authoritarian states had no means of handling dissenters except by imprisonment and murder;
  4. in spite of earlier promises to end corruption, all fascist regimes very soon were so riddled with corruption that the earlier days under 'democratic regimes' were a Sunday school picnic by comparison (this too was a tremendous drag on the economy);
  5. authoritarian regimes do not eliminate competitive 'waste'; in fact internecine fighting is even more pronounced between leaders and their empires. The Nazis were especially notable in this regard; Himmler kept building his empire right up to the final days and even was trying to succeed Hitler in April 1945! Albert Speer revealed this very clearly.
- thus, over the middle and longer term, more 'democratic' regimes tend to be more effective and even somewhat more efficient. We shall be returning to this issue in connection with the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

France


- France has had a long history of sharp social cleavages, at least from the time of the Revolution; the hostilities seem to be sharper, there have been fewer ameliorating influences, and there has often been less willingness to compromise than in Britain. The result has been a long tradition of civil conflict and even bloodshed.

- in the French Revolution, the 'terror' was class and ideological civil war: at first, the middle and lower classes in Paris were lined up against the aristocracy and the court, but as the latter were destroyed or forced into exile, it turned increasingly into more ideological conflict and the middle classes against the working classes; the internal struggle also became anti-clerical and anti-Catholic (so much land and property were owned by the Church and religious orders) but some peasants supported the Church. Thus in some rural areas, there was very serious religious war, similar to the 17th C. The growing conflict and open civil war was ended only with and by Napoleon and his accession to power.

- the Revolution of 1830 was a relatively tame affair and was over quickly with little or no bloodshed. The middle class militia was largely responsible and they quickly called a halt to the disturbances as soon as they had driven out the Bourbons and installed Louis Phillipe. As a constitutional monarchy, it was very closely modelled on Britain's system.

- the Revolution of 1848 very quickly led to revived class and ideological conflicts; initially, the revolution had been made by an alliance of the middle and working classes, but they soon began to diverge on ideological principles; the country again seemed headed for civil war except for intervention and victory of Louis Napoleon. The new authoritarian empire established by Louis Napoleon represented a triumph for the monarchist and Catholic elements in France.

- in the Siege of Paris in 1870-71, there was again sharp class and ideological conflict and virtual civil war in Paris; the result was the killing of several thousand 'communards' (a few students also), mostly working class, by the mainly middle class militia. The Third Republic was a liberal, bourgeois state.

- the Dreyfus Affair and the long battle to achieve separation of Church and state 1890s to 1914 produced bitter political battles but no bloodshed. During the first war, the struggles between the democratic republican groups and the more authoritarian, Catholic and monarchist groups was set aside to fight the foreign enemy, but the hostilities did not disappear. The conservative Catholic political groups of the right were especially unhappy and alienated from the France of the flapper era after WW1.

- in 1935 when the parties of the left came together to form the Popular Front (the Popular Front was made up of left and centre-left parties, but did not include the Communists), it polarised politics in France; the 'right', which had been growing both in number and in the degree of opposition to 'liberal' democracy since the 1890s, was galvanised. Thus, the multi-party system in France was being reduced for practical purposes to two very antagonistic sides. Moreover, the higher command of the French military still had a great over-representation of men from the conservative, Catholic monarchist tradition; relations between the military high command and the centre-left governments of the late 1930s were not good. Morale in much of the army was very low, and after the Non-Aggression Pact signed in August 1939 between Stalin and the Nazis, the French Communists followed orders from Moscow and spread propaganda among French troops that they should not fight against the Germans (those orders remained in effect until the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941; it was only after that date that French communists finally began resistance). Thus, France entered the war in September 1939 badly divided and still demoralised from the effects of WW1.

Vichy Regime

- the rapidity of the French defeat in June 1940 was stunning. Although some of the politicians, including the prime minister, and a few of the higher officers in the army (most notably Charles DeGaulle) wanted to go into exile in Algeria and continue the war, most of the military high command, soon to be led by Marshal Pétain, and the majority of the politicians wanted to arrange a peace on whatever terms Hitler was willing to offer. That is what was done.

- France was divided with the northern 2/3 occupied and run by a German military government. What was left was turned over to Marshal Pétain and those who had supported the surrender; they established their capital in the small spa and resort town of Vichy. While Vichy was nominally independent, it could not act too independently or it was obvious that the Germans could quickly and easily occupy the rest. Vichy was also obliged to turn over a hefty amount of revenue to the Germans to pay for the occupation (this was only the beginning of the systematic stripping of food and resources from France).

- the Vichy Regime 1940-45 represented a seizure of power (a coup d'état) by the more conservative monarchist and Catholic groups; with the defeat and fall of France in June 1940, these elements took over, dissolved the Third Republic and set out to establish a much more authoritarian society. They hoped that after Germany won the war (which they thought inevitable), Nazi Germany would allow France to be reunited. They recognised and accepted that Germany would dominate Europe, and France would be in a subordinate position for a long time.

- while Pétain and most of the others were not fascists, they were authoritarian; they were appalled at the 'immorality' and 'degeneracy' of modern French society. They attributed the defeat, not to their own shortcomings (some of the generals were criminally ineffective and incompetent), but to this alleged 'degeneracy'. Thus, they argued that France could only become great again if it got back on the right track for several generations. As a result, they set out to create in the area under the control of Vichy, their ideal society:
- there were some members of the Vichy government, most notably Pierre Laval, who were eager collaborators with the Germans.

- there was soon open warfare and conflict between Vichy and both the Free French and the Resistance. For those in theVichy government, the Resistance was simply making trouble when the war was already lost. Besides, they were fanatically hostile to the Communist Resistance. However, gradually, they began to attack the non-Communist resistance almost as strongly. To the resistance, Vichy officials were collaborators. The result was a protracted period of civil war with a lot of killing by both sides until just before the liberation.

- the Fourth Republic established in 1945 was virtually the same as the Third Republic except that many French colonies (partly as recognition that many French colonies had gone over to the DeGaulle's Free French well before the invasion of France in 1944) were given representation in the French parliament. Almost everyone wanted to rebuild France and French unity. The myth of 'heroic resistance' provided the basis for this attempt; it is a myth because, until the invasion of France, the resistance was made up of a very small minority of the French population; however, it is true that a much larger proportion, perhaps the majority, were sympathetic and at least helped by being unwilling to expose the resistance. At any rate, after some of the initial reprisals and punishments to 'collaborators' etc., there was a conscious effort to forget the past.

- the Algerian crisis at the end of the 1950s threatened a new polarisation; as public opinion was becoming massively disenchanted with colonial wars and governments were preparing to withdraw, powerful elements in the army were outraged after the defeat in Vietnam just a few years earlier and they began plotting a military coup. It was in this crisis that DeGaulle returned from his long withdrawal from politics and stepped in. DeGaulle still had lots of prestige both in the country and in the army; he was able to rally loyal elements in the army and to scotch the coup attempt. He got the country to agree to significant changes to the constitution strengthening the presidency and thus established the Fifth Republic; this is the political arrangement which exists at the moment.

Cleavages
1. Class
- the 3 level class structure was well defined: the bourgeois, the middle classes, tended to fluctuate, at times joining workers as in 1789 and 1848. However, whenever the workers became more radical, the bourgeois and workers would part company and much of bloodshed, especially in Paris, came from their conflicts, especially during the revolutionary terror and in the suppression of the communards 1870-71.

- the aristocracy suffered severe attrition in the terror; after a short come-back during the Bourbon restoration after 1815, they tended to become a marginal factor after 1830 although they were disproportionately represented in military and monarchist circles.

2. Ideological
Religion
- there was a strong Catholic (later ultramontane) tradition, especially in the provinces outside Paris. As mentioned, in the rural areas, religion was a major focus of violence in the 1790s as some peasants, reacting to the seizure and confiscation of large amounts of land (the Church had come to own approximately 40% of land before the Revolution), tried to launch a crusade against irreligion and 'atheism'; this was not necessarily an accurate representation of the dispute because many of the people who supported the seizure of church lands still remained Catholic.

- the anti-clerical tradition wanted to separate church and state, to reduce (confiscate) much church property and to substitute non-sectarian government run services in place of church-run services (education, hospitals, welfare, etc.); however, many still regarded themselves as good Catholics--anti-clericalism was not necessarily anti-Catholic or atheist.

State Structure
 - there have been profound differences of opinion about what kind of political system France should have:
Liberalism vs Socialism
- this was a recurring struggle in the 19th century; socialism was especially attractive to the working and lower middle classes in Paris, but had much less support outside Paris.

- on the other hand, the higher middle classes dominated society in the 19th century and resisted demands for socialism very strongly.

Paris and the Provinces
- French society was being centralised even in 18th century and that trend was massively increased during the revolution and since. There has frequently been an underlying and sometimes even violent reaction against centralisation and the domination of government and control in Paris.

- while these are the most important cleavages, it is not a complete catalogue. The result has been a fragmented political system with a history of bitterness and violence; also, political and social change tend to be accomplished by convulsions or lurches from one extreme to the other rather than slow evolutionary transitions.

World War I
- France was the most severely affected belligerent by W. W. 1: there was great physical devastation plus enormous casualties among young men; with low birth rates, the population losses were not easily replaced.

- during the 1920s, there was a degree of consensus in hatred against the Germans and in the determination to prevent Germany from again becoming a military power.

- however, old antagonisms of political left and right continued to grow; especially, ultramontanism tended to grow in a direction down the road towards fascism; still bitter about the pre-war separation of church and state, Action Française was prominent and it frequently hinted at a radical and even massive about face in the direction of French society. It probably provided much of the ideas and ideology of the leaders in the Vichy government.

- the depression sharpened divergences in 1930s and the emergence of the Popular Front government alienated people in the movement even further.

- explicitly fascist organisations also emerged, and although their memberships remained small, they tended to have a larger body of sympathisers.

- as the international problem of fascist aggression was growing larger, French society was becoming more divided and polarised; some Frenchmen even became members of Nazi and fascist sponsored groups.

- as indicated earlier, it was Catholic and right wing groups who created and supported Vichy France.

**************************
- these French concerns and preoccupations resonated in Quebec also during the interwar period; Action Française was organised in Quebec and its literature circulated extensively. Ultramontanism had also had a considerable following in Quebec. As in Europe, this Catholic conservatism was authoritarian (not entirely happy with democracy and certainly felt that governments should be more active in telling people what they could and could not do and in limiting some freedoms [speech, religion, etc.]). This can be seen in the Duplessis regime, which came to power early in the second war and lasted until 1959.

- proponents of these views wanted a greater role for the Church in national life, especially in education. As in France, they emphasised the family and 'family values'. Often, there was a strong 'back to the land' nostalgia; they believe that an agrarian way of life is much better, healthier and more moral than life in industrial cities, that it provides the real backbone of society. Also, in the economic crisis of the depression, they saw agriculture as a defence and a solution to economic problems.

- for the most part, these people were not fascists, but they tended to be very vulnerable and were easily taken in by fascists; they shared with the fascists a dislike of liberal and/or social democratic society, the abhorrence of the 'lack of morality' and 'degeneracy' in society and the agrarian nostalgia.
**************************

- the Fourth Republic in 1945 returned to the old multi-party republican tradition; the frequent changes of government which characterised the period were not necessarily an indication of great instability as the powerful bureaucracy remained in place and functioning. In fact, successive governments (all governments were coalitions) tended to move back and forth within a relatively narrow ideological band in the political centre.

- what destroyed the Fourth Republic was colonial wars (Vietnam and then Algeria) and the threatened military coup; there were enormous costs in blood and wealth and still the result was defeat. DeGaulle's solving of that running sore has made possible over three decades of prosperity and stability in France. At the moment, the cleavages which have so long riven French society seem to be healed over and perhaps to have disappeared; however, Le Pan and his movement, especially in regard to their racism, seem to represent some of the same elements that supported Vichy.

HOME History 203 list Top of the page