Chapter 2

Bound Out: The Life of an Apprentice

Consultations were held about fixing me in some employment for the benefit of the family. Winding quills for the weaver was mentioned, but died away. Stripping tobacco for the grocer, in which I was to earn fourpence a week, was a second; but it was at last concluded that I was too young for any employment … My days of play were drawing to an end. The silk-mill was proposed. One of the clerks remarked to the person who took me there, the offer was needless, I was too young. However, the offer was made; and, as hands were wanted, in the infant state of the work I was accepted. It was found, upon trial, that nature had not given me length sufficient to reach the engine, for, out of three hundred, I was by far the least and the youngest. … A pair of high pattens was therefore fabricated, and tied fast to my feet, to make them steady companions. They were clumsy companions, which I dragged about me one year, and with pleasure delivered up. I had now to rise at five every morning during seven years; submit to the cane whenever convenient to the master; be the constant companion of the most vulgar and rude of the human race, beings never taught by nature, nor ever wished it. To be upon equal terms, a lad, let his mind be in what state it will, must be as impudent as they, or be hunted down.

William Hutton's description of his apprenticeship in a silk factory, which he began at the age of seven in 1730, from The Life of William Hutton (1816)

A Critique of Walpole's Conduct of the War with Spain

It was long since the People of Great Britain had been so well pleased with any one Measure of the Court, as they were upon the Declaration of War against Spain. They had now Hopes of procuring, not only Satisfaction for past Depredations and Insults, but Security against any such for the future, and for their free Navigation in the American Seas. It was well and publicly known, that the Minister's Approbation was wanting on this Occasion; but it was hardly suspected, that he would endeavour to render ineffectual what was undertaken with such general Consent of the whole Nation. He did indeed call it the Merchants War, disclaim'd any Part in the engaging in it, and seem'd not to think himself accountable for the Success of it. This made some imagine, that we should soon see new Hands in the Administration, and that the same Gentleman who had so strongly opposed, would not pretend to conduct, a War on which so much depended. If it had so happen'd, he had only been accountable for those Measures which made a War necessary, and might perhaps have avoided some Part of the Censure, which his Fellow-Subjects have since pass'd on him. But as Things have been managed, they cannot help thinking, that the War itself was turn'd upon them, instead of being push'd to their Advantage, and to obtain a Redress of their Sufferings, from a haughty contemptible People. The little that has been done, where much was reasonably expected; the Inactivity of Officers, who were known not to want either personal Courage, or Zeal for their Country; the Discountenance shewn to one Man, who dared to act more bravely, till the Parliament pass'd a Sanction upon his Actions; the Distress he was afterwards put to, and the Impossibility he was laid under of effecting any thing farther; the Security of the Spanish Coasts, while prodigious Fleets were hovering round them; the Precariousness of our own Trade, and the numerous Captures made by the Enemy, while we seem'd not only able to protect ourselves, but to distress them in the most sensible Part; all these are but too many Grounds of Suspicion, at least, if they may not be allow'd to amount to a very great Degree of moral Proof.

James Ralph, A Critical History of the Administration of Sir Robert Walpole (1743)

The Jacobite Threat

The Pretender's son is in Scotland, has set up his standard there, has gathered and disciplined an army of great force, receives daily increase of numbers, is in the possession of the capital city there, has defeated a small part of the King's forces, and is advancing with hasty steps towards England. What will be the issue of this rapid progress must be left to the providence of God. However, what is incumbent upon us to do is to make the best provision we can against it; and every gentleman, I dare say every man in England, will think it his wisdom and his interest to guard against the mischievous attempts of these wild and desperate ruffians. But the great mischief to be feared, which ought to alarm us exceedingly and put us immediately on our defense, is the certain evidence which every day opens more and more that these commotions in the North are but part of a great plan concerted for our ruin. They have begun under the countenance, and will be supported by the forces, of France and Spain, our old and inveterate (and late experience calls upon me to add, our savage and blood-thirsty) enemies – a circumstance that should fire the indignation of every honest Englishman. If these designs should succeed, and popery and arbitrary power come in upon us under the influence and direction of these two tyrannical and corrupted courts, I leave you to reflect what would become of everything that is valuable to us. We are now blessed under the mild administration of a just and Protestant king, who is of so strict an adherence to the laws of our country that not an instance can be pointed out during his whole reign wherein he made the least attempt upon the liberty, or property, or religion of a single person. But, if the ambition and pride of France and Spain is to dictate to us, we must submit to a man to govern us under their hated and accursed influence, who brings his religion from Rome, and the rules and maxims of his government from Paris and Madrid.

Speech of Thomas Herring, Archbishop of York (1745)

Chapter 3

Nabobs

Indostan was always an absolute despotic government. The inhabitants, especially of Bengal, in inferior stations, are servile, mean, submissive, and humble. In superior stations, they are luxurious, effeminate, tyrannical, treacherous, venal, cruel. The country of Bengal is called, by way of distinction, the paradise of the earth. It not only abounds with the necessaries of life to such a degree, as to furnish a great part of India with its superfluity, but it abounds in very curious and valuable manufactures, sufficient not only for its own use, but for the use of the whole globe. The silver of the west and the gold of the east have for many years been pouring into that country, and goods only have been sent out in return. This has added to the luxury and extravagance of Bengal. …

Let the House figure to itself a country consisting of fifteen millions of inhabitants, a revenue of four millions sterling, and a trade in proportion. By progressive steps the Company have become sovereigns of that empire. Can it be supposed that their servants will refrain from advantages so obviously resulting from their situation? The Company's servants, however, have not been the authors of those acts of violence and oppression, of which it is the fashion to accuse them. Such crimes are committed by the natives of the country acting as their agents and for the most part without their knowledge … Hence, Sir, arises the clamour against the English gentlemen in India. But look at them in a retired situation, when returned to England, when they are no longer nabobs and sovereigns of the east: see if there be any thing tyrannical in their disposition towards their inferiors: see if they are not good and humane masters: Are they not charitable? Are they not benevolent? Are they not generous? Are they not hospitable? If they are, thus far, not contemptible members of society, and if in all their dealings between man and man, their conduct is strictly honorable … may we not conclude, that if they have erred, it has been because they were men, placed in situations subject to little or no control?

Speech by Robert Clive in the House of Commons (1772)

Captain Cook in Australia

30 April 1770

As Soon as the Wooders and Waterers were come on board to Dinner 10 or 12 of the Natives came to the watering place, and took away their Canoes that lay there, but did not offer to touch any one of our Casks that had been left ashore; and in the afternoon 16 or 18 of them came boldly up to within 100 yards of our people at the watering place, and there made a stand. Mr. Hicks, who was the Officer ashore, did all in his power to intice them to him by offering them presents; but it was to no purpose, all they seem'd to want was for us to be gone. After staying a Short time they went away. They were all Arm'd with Darts and wooden Swords; the darts have each 4 prongs, and pointed with fish bones. Those we have seen seem to be intended more for striking fish than offensive Weapons; neither are they poisoned, as we at first thought. After I had return'd from sounding the Bay I went over to a Cove on the North side of the Bay, where, in 3 or 4 Hauls with the Sean, we caught about 300 pounds weight of Fish, which I caused to be equally divided among the Ship's Company.

1 May 1770

In the P.M. 10 of the Natives again visited the Watering place. I, being on board at this time, went immediately ashore, but before I got there they were going away. I follow'd them alone and unarm'd some distance along shore, but they would not stop until they got farther off than I choose to trust myself. These were armed in the same manner as those that came Yesterday … This morning a party of us went ashore to some Hutts, not far from the Watering place, where some of the Natives are daily seen; here we left several articles, such as Cloth, Looking Glasses, Coombs, Beads, Nails, etc.; after this we made an Excursion into the Country, which we found diversified with Woods, Lawns, and Marshes. The woods are free from underwood of every kind, and the trees are at such a distance from one another that the whole Country, or at least great part of it, might be Cultivated without being obliged to cut down a single tree. We found the Soil everywhere, except in the Marshes, to be a light white sand, and produceth a quantity of good Grass, which grows in little Tufts about as big as one can hold in one's hand, and pretty close to one another; in this manner the Surface of the Ground is Coated. In the woods between the Trees Dr. Solander had a bare sight of a Small Animal something like a Rabbit, and we found the Dung of an Animal which must feed upon Grass, and which, we judge, could not be less than a Deer; we also saw the Track of a Dog, or some such like Animal. We met with some Hutts and places where the Natives had been, and at our first setting out one of them was seen; the others, I suppose, had fled upon our Approach. I saw some Trees that had been cut down by the Natives with some sort of a Blunt instrument, and several Trees that were barqued, the bark of which had been cut by the same instrument; in many of the Trees, especially the Palms, were cut steps of about 3 or 4 feet asunder for the conveniency of Climbing them.

Captain James Cook's Journal from the Voyage of the Endeavour (1770)

The Zong Incident and the Abolitionist Movement

My time has been much taken up lately in endeavouring to obtain evidence against the master and crew of a Liverpool slave-ship who cast overboard about 123 poor negro slaves alive into the sea with their hands fettered … The contest between the owners and insurers of the ship is a mere mercenary business about the pecuniary value of the negroes; but I hope to obtain from it sufficient evidence to commence a criminal prosecution … for murder … They pleaded a necessity through the want of water to destroy some of the cargo ... in order to save the rest; but it appears that upwards of sixty had died of the gaol distemper (as they always do, at least one third are regularly destroyed by this distemper on every voyage of the slave dealers, through their detestable avarice and cruelty in cramming too great a number down the hold of the ship) even before they discovered that there was a want of water; and fifty-four of the poor negroes were picked from amongst the sick and cast into the sea that very day they discovered the want of water, even before they were put to short allowance; so that if there be any necessity at all in the case, it is the necessity (incumbent upon the whole nation) to put an immediate stop to the slave trade.

Letter from Granville Sharp to William Sharp, 23rd of May 1783

Chapter 4

Boston’s Sons of Liberty Write to John Wilkes

The friends of Liberty, Wilkes, Peace and good order to the number of Forty five, assembled at the Whig Tavern Boston New England, take this first opportunity to congratulate your Country, the British Colonies and yourself, on your happy return to the land alone worthy such an Inhabitant: worthy! as they have lately manifested an incontestible proof of virtue, in the honorable and most important trust reposed in you by the County of Middlesex. May you convince Great Britain and Ireland in Europe, the British Colonies, Islands and Plantations in America, that you are one of those incorruptibly honest men reserved by heaven to bless, and perhaps save a tottering Empire. That Majesty can never be secure but in the Arms of a brave, a virtuous, and united people. That nothing but a common interest, and absolute confidence in an impartial and general protection, can combine so many Millions of Men, born to make laws for themselves; conscious and invincibly tenacious of their Rights. That the British Constitution still exists is our Glory; feeble and infirm as it is, we cannot, we will not despair of it. To a Wilkes much is already due for his strenuous efforts to preserve it. Those generous and inflexible principles which have rendered you so greatly eminent, support our claim to your esteem and assistance. To vindicate Americans is – not to desert yourself. Permit us therefore much respected Sir, to express our confidence in your approved abilities and steady Patriotism. Your Country, the British Empire, and unborn millions plead an exertion, at this alarming Crisis. Your perseverance in the good old cause may still prevent the great System from dashing to pieces. ’Tis from your endeavors we hope for a Royal “Pascite, ut ante, boves”; and from our attachment to “peace and good order” we wait for a constitutional redress: being determined that the King of Great Britain shall have Subjects but not Slaves in these remote parts of his Dominions.

Letter from the Committee of the Boston Sons of Liberty to John Wilkes (1768)

A Plea for Irish Independence

In the present era of reform, when unjust governments are falling in every quarter of Europe, when religious persecution is compelled to abjure her tyranny over conscience, when the rights of men are ascertained in theory, and theory substantiated by practice, when antiquity can no longer defend absurd and oppressive forms, against the common sense and common interests of mankind, when all governments are acknowledged to originate from the people, and to be so far only obligatory, as they protect their rights and promote their welfare, we think it our duty, as Irishmen, to come forward, and state what we feel to be our heavy grievance, and what we know to be its effectual remedy. We have no national government, we are ruled by Englishmen, and the servants of Englishmen, whose object is the interest of another country, whose instrument is corruption, and whose strength is the weakness of Ireland; and these men have the whole of the power and patronage of the country, as means to seduce and subdue the honesty of her representatives in the legislature. Such an extrinsic power, acting with uniform force, in a direction too frequently opposite to the true line of our obvious interest, can be resisted with effect solely by unanimity, decision, and spirit in the people, qualities which may be exerted most legally, constitutionally, efficaciously, by the great measure, essential to the prosperity and freedom of Ireland, an equal representation of all the people in parliament.

Impressed with these sentiments, we have agreed to form an association, to be called the Society of United Irishmen, and we do pledge ourselves to our country, and mutually to each other, that we will steadily support, and endeavour by all due means to carry into effect the following resolutions:

lst. Resolved, That the weight of English influence in the government is so great, as to require a cordial union among all the people of Ireland, to maintain that balance which is essential to the preservation of our liberties, and extension of our commerce.

2nd. That the sole constitutional mode by which this influence can be opposed is by a complete and radical reform of the representation of the people in parliament.

3rd. That no reform is practicable, efficacious, or just, which shall not include Irishmen of every religious persuasion.

Satisfied, as we are, that the intestine divisions among Irishmen have too often given encouragement and impunity to profligate, audacious, and corrupt administrations, in measures which, but for these divisions, they durst not have attempted, we submit our resolutions to the nation, as the basis of our political faith. We have gone to what we conceived to be the root of the evil. We have stated what we conceive to be remedy. With a parliament thus formed, everything is easy – without it, nothing can be done – and we do call on, and most earnestly exhort our countrymen in general to follow our example, and to form similar societies in every quarter of the kingdom, for the promotion of constitutional knowledge, the abolition of bigotry in religion and politics, and the equal distribution of the rights of man throughout all sects and denominations of Irishmen. The people, when thus collected, will feel their own weight, and secure that the power which theory has already admitted as their portion, and to which, if they be not aroused by their present provocations to vindicate it, they deserve to forfeit their pretensions for ever.

The Declaration, Resolutions, and Constitution of the Societies of United Irishmen (1797)

American Contemplates War with Britain

It is said that we are not prepared for war, and ought therefore not to declare it. This is an idle objection, which can have weight with the timid and pusillanimous only. The fact is otherwise. Our preparations are adequate to every essential object. Do we apprehend danger to ourselves? From what quarter will it assail us? From England, and by invasion? The idea is too absurd to merit a moment’s consideration. Where are her troops? But lately, she dreaded an invasion of her own dominions, from her powerful and menacing neighbor. That danger, it is true, has diminished, but it has not entirely, and forever, disappeared. A gallant effort, which called forth the whole energies of the nation, has put it at a distance, but still it is one of those sparks which peer above the horizon, & excite alarm even in those least liable to it. The war in the peninsula, which lingers, requires strong armies to support it. She maintains an army in Sicily; another in India; and a strong force in Ireland, and along her own coast and in the West Indies. Can any one believe, that, under such circumstances, the British government could be so infatuated, or rather mad, as to send troops here for the purpose of invasion? The experience and the fortune of our revolution, when we were comparatively in an infant state, have doubtless taught her an useful lesson which cannot have been forgotten. Since that period our population has increased three-fold, whilst hers has remained almost stationary. The condition of the civilized world, too, has changed. Although Great Britain has nothing to fear, as to her independence, and her military operations are extensive and distant, the contest is evidently maintained by her rather for safety than for conquest. Have we cause to dread an attack from her neighboring provinces? That apprehension is still more groundless. Seven or eight millions of people have nothing to dread from 300,000. From the moment that war is declared, the British colonies will be put on the defensive, and soon after we get in motion must sink under the pressure. Little predatory incursions on our frontier will not be encouraged by those who know that we can retort them ten-fold, and pursue and punish the authors, retire where they may, if they remain in this hemisphere. Nor is any serious danger to be apprehended from their savage allies. Our frontiers may be easily protected against them. The colonial governments, aware of our superiority, and of the certainty of their subjugation in case of war, will feel their responsibility for the conduct of the Indian tribes, and keep them in order …

The great question on which the United States have to decide, is, whether they will relinquish the ground which they now hold, or maintain it with the firmness and vigor becoming freemen. That the sense of the nation favors the latter course, is proved by a series of important and solemn facts, which speak a language not to be misunderstood. From the first attack by Great Britain on our neutral rights in 1805, to the present day, these facts have been multiplied, yearly, by the acts of Congress, by the proceedings of the state legislatures, and by the voice of the people. Let not the Representatives of the People, therefore, in either branch of the government, disappoint their reasonable wishes and just expectations.

The pretensions of Great Britain, so unjustly set up, and pertinaciously maintained, by her orders in council, not to enumerate other wrongs, particularly the impressment of our seamen, arrogate to her the complete dominion of the sea, and the exclusion of every flag from it, which does not sail under her license, and on the conditions which she imposes. These pretensions involve no local interest, nor are they of a transient nature. In their operation they violate the rights, and wound deeply the best interests, of the whole American people. If we yield to them, at this time, the cause may be considered as abandoned. There will be no rallying point hereafter. Future attempts to retaliate the wrongs of foreign powers and to vindicate our most sacred rights, will be in vain. The subject must be dismissed from the debates of Congress, and from our diplomatic discussions. An allusion to it will excite contempt abroad, and mortification and shame at home. Should any of our vessels be hereafter seized and condemned, however unjustly, and that all will be seized and condemned may be confidently expected, we must be silent, or be heard by foreign powers in the humble language of petition only.

“Letter in Support of War,” Henry Clay (1812)

Chapter 5

Dickens’s Coketown

It was a town of red brick, or of brick that would have been red if the smoke and ashes had allowed it; but as matters stood, it was a town of unnatural red and black like the painted face of a savage. It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal in it, and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next … You saw nothing in Coketown but what was severely workful … The jail might have been the infirmary, the infirmary might have been the jail, the town-hall might have been either, or both, or anything else.

Charles Dickens, Hard Times (1854)

The People’s Charter

We, your petitioners, dwell in a land whose merchants are noted for enterprise, whose manufacturers are very skilful, and whose workmen are proverbial for their industry. The land itself is goodly, the soil rich, and the temperature wholesome; it is abundantly furnished with the materials of commerce and trade; it has numerous and convenient harbours; in facility of internal communication it exceeds all others. For three and twenty years we have enjoyed a profound peace. Yet, with all these elements of national prosperity, and with every disposition and capacity to take advantage of them, we find ourselves overwhelmed with public and private suffering. We are bowed down under a load of taxes; which, notwithstanding, fall greatly short of the wants of our rulers; our traders are trembling on the verge of bankruptcy; our workmen are starving; capital brings no profit, and labor no remuneration; the home of the artificer is desolate, and the warehouse of the pawnbroker is full; the workhouse is crowded, and the manufactory is deserted …

The energies of a mighty kingdom have been wasted in building up the power of selfish and ignorant men, and its resources squandered for their aggrandizement. The good of a party has been advanced to the sacrifice of the good of the nation; the few have governed for the interest of the few, while the interest of the many has been neglected, or insolently and tyrannously trampled upon. It was the fond expectation of the people that a remedy for the greater part, if not for the whole, of their grievances, would be found in the Reform Act of 1832. They were taught to regard that Act as a wise means to a worthy end; as the machinery of an improved legislation, when the will of the masses would be at length potential. They have been bitterly and basely deceived. The fruit which looked so fair to the eye has turned to dust and ashes when gathered. The Reform Act has effected a transfer of power from one domineering faction to another, and left the people as helpless as before. Our slavery has been exchanged for an apprenticeship to liberty, which has aggravated the painful feeling of our social degradation, by adding to it the sickening of still deferred hope.

We come before your Honourable House to tell you, with all humility, that this state of things must not be permitted to continue; that it cannot long continue without very seriously endangering the stability of the throne and the peace of the kingdom; and that if by God's help and all lawful and constitutional appliances, an end can be put to it, we are fully resolved that it shall speedily come to an end. We tell your Honourable House that the capital of the master must no longer be deprived of its due reward; that the laws which make food dear, and those which by making money scarce, make labour cheap, must be abolished; that taxation must be made to fall on property, not on industry; that the good of the many, as it is the only legitimate end, so must it be the sole study of the Government …

We perform the duties of freemen; we must have the privileges of freemen.

WE DEMAND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

The suffrage to be exempt from the corruption of the wealthy, and the violence of the powerful, must be secret. The assertion of our right necessarily involves the power of its uncontrolled exercise.

WE DEMAND THE BALLOT.

The connection between the representatives and the people, to be beneficial must be intimate … We are compelled, by the existing laws, to take for our representatives, men who are incapable of appreciating our difficulties, or who have little sympathy with them; merchants who have retired from trade, and no longer feel its harassings; proprietors of land who are alike ignorant of its evils and their cure; lawyers, by whom the honors of the senate are sought after only as means of obtaining notice in the courts … If the self-government of the people should not remove their distresses, it will at least remove their repinings. Universal suffrage will, and it alone can, bring true and lasting peace to the nation; we firmly believe that it will also bring prosperity.

The People’s Petition (1838)

An English View of the Irish Famine

We have been united to Ireland for forty-seven years by the ties of legislative association. During that time Ireland has enjoyed all the privileges that England enjoyed … During these forty-seven years she has contributed to the public revenue not more than one-sixth of the whole – from several of the more oppressive taxes she has been entirely absolved – she has devolved on England a debt contracted before the union, the interest of which equals or nearly equals all that she now remits to the Imperial Treasury; she costs annually half of what she yields in the way of taxation – yet notwithstanding these facts she claims in alternate tones of supplication and menace that her poor shall be supported by our bounty, her improvidence corrected by our prudence, and her self-sought necessities alleviated by our mortgaged wealth. Her representatives tells us at one moment, as Mr. O’Connell told us on Monday – that we ought to behave with the charity of a Christian country, irrespectively of national distinctions and prudential reflections, proportioning our bounty and the enormity of an unusual infliction and the numbers of complaining multitudes. At another moment they tell us, as Sir W. Barron and Captain Osbourne told us, in Parliamentary language, and as the Irish members of the “Reform” smoking room yell out in language neither Parliamentary nor civil, that do what we can, we are only doing what we ought; that Ireland expects as a right that we should from the last scruple of “mechanic wages” pay down the cost of Irish imprudence and mitigate the acerbity of Irish wretchedness. In a word, between the evictions of a plausible mendicancy and an extortionate vehemence, nothing is left but to tax English labor for uncounted years to come, and to pay Ireland three times over the value of its fee simple, to gratify the prayers of her gentler, and the demands of her noisier, delegates. Is it worth while doing this?

John Bull is very good natured. He does not like the sight of pining indigence; but he detests shuffling, and bullying a great deal more. He hates to see men shirk the duties of their station and fortune. He would give a helping hand to those who set about their work in a season like this with energy and resolution. He would throw his coin freely into the coffers of some commissariat of charity if he saw that those who were on the spot and native to the place had done their duty and given their share. But to be told that he is to pay for the delinquencies of others – that they who are the natural guardians of their own poor appeal to him – that property worth £13,000,000 a year is to be let off comparatively scot free, between the jugglers of mortgagees, lessees, and creditors: and then, after all, to be abused and reviled for not doing instantly that which he sees no good reason for doing so at all is a thing which excited his bile against the impudence of Celtic agitators, but also against their English cohorts; and thus begins to ponder the question: “Of what use is this union to England?”

Lead Editorial, Times (London), 10th of February 1846

Chapter 6

A Visit to the Great Exhibition of 1851

Yesterday I went for the second time to the Crystal Palace. We remained in it about three hours, and I must say I was more struck with it on this occasion than at my first visit. It is a wonderful place – vast, strange, new and impossible to describe. Its grandeur does not consist in one thing, but in the unique assemblage of all things. Whatever human industry has created you find there, from the great compartments filled with railway engines and boilers, with mill machinery in full work, with splendid carriages of all kinds, with harness of every description, to the glass-covered and velvet-spread stands loaded with the most gorgeous work of the goldsmith and silversmith, and the carefully guarded caskets full of real diamonds and pearls worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. It may be called a bazaar or a fair, but it is such a bazaar or fair as Eastern genii might have created. It seems as if only magic could have gathered this mass of wealth from all the ends of the earth – as if none but supernatural hands could have arranged it this, with such a blaze and contrast of colours and marvellous power of effect. The multitude filling the great aisles seems ruled and subdued by some invisible influence. Amongst the thirty thousand souls that peopled it the day I was there not one loud noise was to be heard, not one irregular movement seen; the living tide rolls on quietly, with a deep hum like the sea heard from the distance.

Letter from the novelist Charlotte Bronte to her father (1851)

A Woman’s Voice

A married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband. Years of separation or desertion cannot alter this position … She has no possessions, unless by special settlement; her property is his property … An English wife cannot make a will. She may have children or kindred whom she may earnestly desire to benefit; – she may be separated from her husband, who may be living with a mistress; no matter: the law gives what she has to him, and no will she could make would be valid … If an English wife be guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her so as to marry again; but she cannot divorce the husband … however profligate he may be … If her husband take proceedings for a divorce, she is not, in the first instance, allowed to defend herself … She is not represented by attorney, nor permitted to be considered a party to the suit between him and her supposed lover, for “damages.” An English wife cannot legally claim her own earnings. Whether wages for manual labor, or payment for intellectual exertion, whether she weed potatoes, or keep a school, her salary is the husband’s; and he could compel a second payment, and treat the first as void, if paid to the wife without his sanction. She cannot prosecute for a libel. Her husband must prosecute; and in cases of enmity and separation, of course she is without a remedy. She cannot sign a lease, or transact responsible business … As her husband, he has a right to all that is hers: as his wife, she has no right to anything that is his … The marriage ceremony is a civil bond for him, – and an indissoluble sacrament for her; and the rights of mutual property which that ceremony is ignorantly supposed to confer, are made absolute for him, and null for her …

The club-loungers smile in scorn. “What is all this disturbance about? Woman’s rights and woman’s wrongs? – pooh, pooh; nonsense … Americanism! we can’t have that sort of thing in England. Women must submit; those who don’t, are bad women – depend upon it: all bad women.” … Even now, friends say to me: – “Why write? why struggle? it is the law! You will do no good.” But if everyone slacked courage with that doubt, nothing would ever be achieved in this world. This much I will do, – woman though I be. I will put on record … what the law for women was in England, in the year of civilization and Christianity 1855, and the 16th year of the reign of a female sovereign!

Caroline Norton, Letter to Queen Victoria (1855)

The Trent Affair

It is well understood that Great Britain has demanded satisfaction for the Trent affair, in what terms and to what extent is not known at the time we write … Of the conduct of Great Britain in this affair it requires unusual self-control to speak in measured language. It is as well known in England as here that the United States are engaged in a life struggle; that every man and every dollar are enlisted in a contest for the maintenance of our nationality; that there never has been a time since the conquest of our independence when this country was less fitted to embark in a foreign war. It requires some self-command to remark upon the conduct of a nation which chooses this moment to offer us the option of war or humiliation. History, we think, may vainly be searched for a parallel. Half a dozen times since 1814 occasions of war have arisen between this country and England, and have always been adjusted by diplomacy. It is only now, when our whole energies are engrossed in a domestic struggle, that England ventures to threaten us with war.

But a just providence rules, and to Him the issue may safely be intrusted. No wrong, in national affairs, ever goes unpunished. No such baseness as England has evinced in the course of the past nine months can escape retribution. A time will come – and in our day, too – when we shall call England to account for the unnatural enmity she has displayed toward the United States; for her base sympathy with traitors and pirates; and for the unspeakable cowardice she now evinces in trying to drive us to the wall in the hour of our most trying extremity. She should be the last Power in the world to make us her foe, for she has not a friend in the world. There is not a nation in Europe that would not exult over the ruin of England, for there is not one she has not insulted, outraged, or injured at some moment when they could not strike back … Millions of our poor creatures in India, and millions in China, will bless the day when we strike to the heart of the brutal oppressor, who for a century, has trampled feeling from this country, and the imminent danger of a collision, there is no good reason for supposing that the collision may not be avoided. A century, however, will not repair the mischief worked by the jealousy of England at this time. We may be ceremonious acquaintances, punctiliously careful upon every point of etiquette, but we shall not for many a generation be the friends that we ought to be now, and that so many believed we already were.

“The Trent Question,” Harper’s Weekly, 2nd of January 1862

Chapter 7

Colonel Urabi’s Revolt in Egypt

To My Honourable Friend H.E. Ahmed Pasha Arabi,

May God preserve you in adversity as in good fortune. As a soldier and a patriot you will have understood the reasons which have prevented me from writing to you or sending you any message during the late unhappy war. Now, however, that the war is over, I hope to show you that our friendship has not been one of words only. It seems probable that you will be brought to trial, either for rebellion or on some other charge, the nature of which I yet hardly know, and that, unless you are strongly and skilfully defended, you run much risk of being precipitately condemned. I have therefore resolved, with your approval, to come to Cairo to help you with such evidence as I can give, and to bring with me an honest and learned English advocate to conduct your defence; and I have informed the English Government of my intention. I beg you, therefore, without delay, to authorize me to act for you in this matter – for your formal assent is necessary; and it would be well if you would at once send me a telegram, and also a written letter, to authorize me to engage counsel in your name. Several liberal-minded Englishmen of high position will join me in defraying all the expenses of your case. You may also count upon me, personally, to see, during your captivity, that your family is not left in want. And so may God give you courage to endure the evil with the good.

Letter from Wilfred Scawen Blunt to Colonel Arabi (1882)

Cecil Rhodes’s Imperial Vision

I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars, at this moment had we not lost America I believe we could have stopped the Russian-Turkish war by merely refusing money and supplies … We learn from having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.

Cecil Rhodes, “Confession of Faith” (1877)

Jingoism

“The Dogs of War” are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,

Full bent on blood and robbery, has crawl’d out of his lair;

It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame

That brute, and so he's out upon the “same old game.”

The Lion did his best to find him some excuse

To crawl back to his den again, all efforts were no use;

He hunger’d for his victim, he’s pleased when blood is shed,

But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head.

We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do,

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and got the money too!

We’ve fought the Bear before and while we’re Britons true

The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

…

May he who ‘gan the quarrel soon have to bite the dust,

The Turk should be thrice armed for “he hath his quarrel just,”

‘Tis sad that countless thousands should die thro’ cruel war,

But let us hope most fervently ere long it will be o’er;

Let them be warned, Old England is brave Old England still,

We’ve proved our might, we’ve claimed our right, and ever, ever will,

Should we have to draw the sword our way to victory we’ll forge,

With the battle cry of Britons, “Old England and Saint George!”

Macdermott’s War Song (“By Jingo”) (1878)

Chapter 8

The Case for Home Rule

Under eighty-five years of parliamentary connection with England, Ireland has become intensely disloyal and intensely disaffected; notwithstanding the Whig policy of so-called conciliation, alternative conciliation and coercion, and ameliorative measures, that disaffection has hardened, deepened and intensified from day to day. Am I not, then entitled to assume that one of the roots of this disaffection – this feeling of disloyalty – is the assumption by England of the management of our affairs? It is admitted that the present system cannot go on, and what are you going to put in its place? My advice to English statesmen considering this question would be this – trust the Irish people altogether, or trust them not at all. Give with a full and open hand, give our people the power to legislate upon all domestic concerns, and you may depend upon one thing, that the desire for separation – the means of winning separation at least – will not be increased or intensified …

It is impossible for us to give guarantees, but we can point to the past; we can show that the record of English rule is a constant series of steps from bad to worse – that the condition of English power is more insecure and more unstable at the present moment than it has ever been … We can show the powers that have been freely conceded to the colonies, to the greater colonies, including this very power to protect their own industries against and at the expense of those of England. We can show that disaffection has disappeared in all the greater English colonies: that while the Irishman who goes to the United States of America carries with him a burning hatred of English rule – that while that burning hatred constantly lives in his heart, never leaves him, and is bequeathed to his children. The Irishman coming from the same village, and from the same parish, and from the same townland, equally maltreated, cast out on the road by the relentless landlord, who goes to one of the colonies of Canada or one of the colonies of Australia, and finds there another and a different system of English rule to that which he has been accustomed to at home, becomes to a great extent a loyal citizen and a strength and a prop to the community amongst whom his lot has been cast, that he forgets the little memories of his experience of England at home, and that he no longer continues to look upon the name of England as a symbol of oppression, and the badge of the misfortunes of his country, say that it is possible … I am convinced that English statesman who is great enough and who is powerful to carry out these teachings, to enforce them on the of his countrymen, to give to Ireland full legislative liberty, full power to manage her own domestic concerns, will be regarded in the future by his countrymen as one who has removed the greatest peril to the English Empire – a peril, I firmly believe, which, if not removed, will … find, sooner or later, and it may be sooner than later, an opportunity of severing itself – to the destruction of that British empire for the misfortunes, the oppressions, and the misgovernment of our country.

Charles Stewart Parnell, speech in County Wicklow, January 1885

A Vision of Imperial Unity

We are a kingdom, an old country. We proceed here on settled lines. We have our quarrels and our disputes, and we pass legislation which may be good or bad; but we know that, whatever changes there may be, at all events the main stream will ultimately reach its appointed destination. That is the result of centuries of constitutional progress and freedom. But the Empire is not old. The Empire is new – the Empire is in its infancy. Now is the time when we can mold that Empire and when we and those who live with us can decide its future destinies. Just let us consider what that Empire is; I am not going tonight to speak of those hundreds of millions of our Indian and native fellow subjects for whom we have become responsible. I consider for the moment only our relations to that white British population that constitutes the majority in the great self-governing colonies of the Empire … Before the end of this present century we may find our fellow subjects beyond the seas as numerous as we are at home. I want you to look forward. I want you to consider the infinite importance of this not only to yourselves but to your descendants. Now is the time when you can exert influence. Do you wish that if these ten millions become forty millions they shall still be closely, intimately, affectionately united to you, or do you contemplate the possibility of their being separated, going off each in his own direction, under a separate flag? Think what it means to your power and influence as a country; think what it means to your position among the nations of the world; think what it means to your trade and commerce – I put that last … I believe in a British Empire, in an Empire which, though it should be its first duty to cultivate friendship with all the nations of the world, should yet, even if alone, be self-sustaining and self-sufficient, able to maintain itself against the competition of all its rivals. And I do not believe in a Little England which shall be separated from all those to whom it would in the natural course look for support and affection, a Little England which would then be dependent absolutely on the mercy of those who envy its present prosperity, and who have shown they are ready to do all in their power to prevent its future union with the British races throughout the world.

Joseph Chamberlain, speech in Birmingham, 15th of May 1903

Votes for Women

Experience will show you that if you really want to get anything done, it is not so much a matter of whether you alienate sympathy; sympathy is a very unsatisfactory thing if it is not practical sympathy. It does not matter to the practical suffragist whether she alienates sympathy that was never of any use to her. What she wants is to get something practical done, and whether it is done out of sympathy or whether it is done out of fear, or whether it is done because you want to be comfortable again and not be worried in this way, doesn’t particularly matter so long as you get it. We had enough of sympathy for fifty years; it never brought us anything; and we would rather have an angry man going to the government and saying, my business is interfered with and I won’t submit to its being interfered with any longer because you won’t give women the vote, than to have a gentleman come onto our platforms year in and year out and talk about his ardent sympathy with woman suffrage.

“Put them in prison,” they said. “That will stop it.” But it didn’t stop it. They put women in prison for long terms of imprisonment, for making a nuisance of themselves that was the expression when they took petitions in their hands to the door of the House of Commons; and they thought that by sending them to prison, giving them a day’s imprisonment, would cause them to all settle down again and there would be no further trouble. But it didn’t happen so at all: instead of the women giving it up, more women did it, and more and more and more women did it until there were three hundred women at a time, who had not broken a single law, only “made a nuisance of themselves” as the politicians say …

Now, I want to say to you who think women cannot succeed, we have brought the government of England to this position, that it has to face this alternative; either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote. I ask American men in this meeting, what would you say if in your State you were faced with that alternative, that you must either kill them or give them their citizenship, women, many of whom you respect, women whom you know have lived useful lives, women whom you know, even if you do not know them personally, are animated with the highest motives, women who are in pursuit of liberty and the power to do useful public service? Well, there is only one answer to that alternative; there is only one way out of it, unless you are prepared to put back civilization two or three generations; you must give those women the vote. Now that is the outcome of our civil war. You won your freedom in America when you had the Revolution, by bloodshed, by sacrificing human life. You won the Civil War by the sacrifice of human life when you decided to emancipate the Negro. You have left it to the women in your land, the men of all civilized countries have left it to women, to work out their own salvation. That is the way in which we women of England are doing. Human life for us is sacred, but we say if any life is to be sacrificed it shall be ours; we won’t do it ourselves, but we will put the enemy in the position where they will have to choose between giving us freedom or giving us death.

Emmeline Pankhurst, speech in Hartford, Connecticut, 13th of November 1913

Chapter 9

A Burst of Patriotism

The King and Queen, accompanied by the Prince of Wales and Princess Mary, were hailed with wild, enthusiastic cheers when they appeared at about eight o'clock last night on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, before which a record crowd had assembled. Seeing the orderliness of the crowd, the police did not attempt to force the people back and went away. A little later the police passed the word around that silence was necessary as the King was holding a meeting in the Palace, and except for a few spasmodic outbursts there was silence for a time. Afterwards the cheering was renewed with increased vigor and soon after 11.00pm the King and Queen and Prince of Wales made a further appearance on the balcony and the crown once more sang the National Anthem, following this with hearty clapping and cheering. After the departure of the royal party some minutes later many of the crowd dispersed. Several enthusiasts, however, stayed outside keeping up the demonstration by shouting and waving flags.

“Roars of Cheers for the King,” Daily Mirror, 4th of August 1914

The Battle of the Somme

On July 1st, at 7.30 am, after a final hour of exceptionally violent bombardment, our infantry assault was launched. Simultaneously the French attacked on both sides of the Somme, co-operating closely with us. The British main front of attack extended from Maricourt on our right, round the salient at Fricourt, to the Ancre in front of St. Pierre Divion. To assist this main attack by holding the enemy's reserves and occupying his artillery, the enemy's trenches north of the Ancre, as far as Serre inclusive, were to be assaulted simultaneously; while further north a subsidiary attack was to be made on both sides of the salient at Gommecourt. I had entrusted the attack on the front from Maricourt to Serre to the Fourth Army, under the command of General Sir Henry S. Rawlinson, with five Army Corps at his disposal. The subsidiary attack at Gommecourt was carried out by troops from the Third Army commanded by General Sir E.H.H. Allenby. Just prior to the attack the mines which had been prepared under the enemy's lines were exploded, and smoke was discharged at many places along our front. Through this smoke our infantry advanced to the attack with the utmost steadiness, in spite of the very heavy barrage of the enemy's guns. On our right our troops met with immediate success, and rapid progress was made. Before midday Montauban had been carried by the 30th Division, and shortly afterwards the Briqueterie to the east, and the whole of the ridge to the west of the village were in our hands (18th Division). Opposite Mametz part of our assembly trenches had been practically levelled by the enemy artillery, making it necessary for our infantry (7th Division) to advance to the attack across 400 yards of open ground. None the less they forced their way into Mametz, and reached their objective in the valley beyond, first throwing out a defensive flank towards Fricourt on their left. At the same time the enemy's trenches were entered by the 21st Division north of Fricourt, so that the enemy's garrison in that village was pressed on three sides.

Further north, though the villages of La Boiselle and Ovillers for the time being resisted our attack, our troops (34th and 8th Divisions) drove deeply into the German lines on the flanks of these strongholds, and so paved the way for their capture later. On the spur running south from Thiepval the work known as the Leipzig Salient was stormed by the 32nd Division, and severe fighting took place for the possession of the village and its defences. Here and north of the valley of the Ancre as far as Serre on the left flank of our attack, our initial successes were not sustained. Striking progress was made at many points and parties of troops penetrated the enemy's positions to the outer defences of Grandcourt (36th Division), and also to Pendant Copse (4th Division) and Serre (31st Division); but the enemy's continued resistance at Thiepval and Beaumont Hamel (29th Division) made it impossible to forward reinforcements and ammunition, and, in spite of their gallant efforts, our troops were forced to withdraw during the night to their own lines. The subsidiary attack at Gommecourt also forced its way into the enemy's positions; but there met with such vigorous opposition that as soon as it was considered that the attack had fulfilled its object our troops were withdrawn.

General Douglas Haig, Report on the First Day of the Battle of the Somme, 1st of July 1916

The Proclamation of the Irish Republic

Irishmen and Irishwomen:

In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom. Having organized and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organization, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organizations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory. We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State. And we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations. The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish woman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities of all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority in the past. Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people. We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

“Proclamation of the Irish Republic,” 24th of April 1916

Chapter 10

A British View of the Treaty of Versailles

For one who spent in Paris the greater part of the six months which succeeded the armistice an occasional visit to London was a strange experience. England still stands outside Europe. Europe's voiceless tremors do not reach her. Europe is apart and England is not of her flesh and body. But Europe is solid with herself. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Holland, Russia and Romania and Poland, throb together, and their structure and civilization are essentially one. They flourished together, they have rocked together in a war which we, in spite of our enormous contributions and sacrifices (like though in a less degree than America), economically stood outside, and they may fall together. In this lies the destructive significance of the Peace of Paris. If the European civil war is to end with France and Italy abusing their momentary victorious power to destroy Germany and Austria-Hungary now prostrate, they invite their own destruction also, being so deeply and inextricably intertwined with their victims by hidden psychic and economic bonds.

John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919)

The British Empire Exhibition

It is safe to say that posterity will regard the British Empire Exhibition of 1924 as having been one of the most significant events in the whole story of our Imperial development. The steady trend of British history has been marked by a long series of accidental and premeditated happenings. Wars, industrial expansion, a growing population, and other vast economic forces have, during the last seventy years, re-shaped the framework of our race. The planting of the flag in many far-flung lands has had the effect of rendering sections of our people remote and self-determinate. Daughter-states have grown into sister-nations, but the various components of Empire have become increasingly interdependent. Wembley will emphasise our racial achievements up to date, and will convey to the visitor not only a wider and more definite idea of what our people have accomplished in the past, but a clearer knowledge of what it will be possible for us to achieve in the future.

Since the spacious days of Elizabeth, the course of Empire has been quietly shaped for us by the deeds of our navigators, explorers, buccaneers and missionaries. … In Queen Victoria's reign people began to grasp the facts that the British Isles needed healthy and fertile lands to which their surplus population might advantageously emigrate, and that our manufacturers needed the raw materials which those lands and emigrants could provide. Within the British Commonwealth of Nations there now exists all the potentialities of manufacture and trade. The Empire is at last on the way towards becoming self-supporting and independent. We need only inter-Empire co-operation to knit together the various powerful communities of consumers and producers within the realm into one great patriotic fabric …

A Women's Section has been organized with H.M. the Queen as Patron and H.R.H. the Duchess of York as President. Its purpose is to enroll the active sympathy of women throughout the Empire in the success of the Exhibition. It will act as a consultative body, to whom reference can be made by the Board, on all matters affecting directly women's interests. It will have, however, its special interest in the Hospitality arrangements, so as to give visitors from overseas a really home-like welcome when they come to the centre of the Empire this year.

British Empire Exhibition – Handbook of General Information (1924)

Appeasement

As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view –a perfectly intelligible view – of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House … If that is the honorable Members' conviction, there is no future hope for civilization or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable … It seems to me that the strongest argument against the inevitability of war is to be found in something that everyone has recognized in every part of the House. That is the universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again …

What is the alternative to this bleak and barren policy of the inevitability of war? In my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may suit better other peoples.

I am told that the policy which I have tried to describe is inconsistent with the continuance, and much more inconsistent with the acceleration of our present program of arms. I am asked how I can reconcile an appeal to the country to support the continuance of this program with the words which I used when I came back from Munich the other day and spoke of my belief that we might have peace in our time … I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace for our time, but I never meant to suggest that we should do that by disarmament, until we can induce others to disarm too. Our past experience has shown us only too clearly that weakness in armed strength means weakness in diplomacy, and if we want to secure a lasting peace, I realize that diplomacy cannot be effective unless the consciousness exists, not here alone, but elsewhere, that behind the diplomacy is the strength to give effect.

Neville Chamberlain, speech to the House of Commons, 5th of October 1938

Chapter 11

An American Journalist’s View of the Blitz

http://journalism.indiana.edu/resources/erniepyle/wartime-columns/a-dreadful-masterpiece/

An Anglo-American Vision for the Postwar World

Hitler has destroyed the bases of political and social co-operation throughout Europe and he is destroying her economic structure. The future of Europe will depend on how moral and material reconstruction is brought about throughout the world. While all our efforts are concentrated on winning the war, Her Majesty’s Government has naturally been giving careful thought to this all-important matter … We have declared that social security must be the first object of our domestic policy after the war. And social security will be our policy abroad not less than at home. It will be our wish to work with others to prevent the starvation of the post-armistice period, the currency disorders throughout Europe, and the wide fluctuations of employment, markets and prices which were the cause of so much misery in the twenty years between the two wars. We shall seek to achieve this in many ways which will interfere as little as possible with the proper liberty of each country over its own economic fortunes.

The countries of the British Empire and their Allies, with the United States and South America, alone are in a position to carry out such a policy. For irrespective of the nature of the political settlement, continental Europe will end this war starved and bankrupt of all the foods and raw materials which she was accustomed to obtain from the rest of the world … She can export few goods until she has, first of all, received the necessary raw materials. Wasteful wartime cultivations in many lands will leave agriculture almost as weak as industry. Thus Europe will face the vast problem of general demobilization with a general lack of the necessary means to put men back to work.

Let no one suppose, however, that we for our part intend to return to the chaos of the old world. To do so would bankrupt us no less than others. When peace comes we shall make such relaxations of our wartime financial arrangements as will permit the revival of international trade on the widest possible basis. We shall hope to see the development of a system of international exchange in which the trading of goods and services will be the central feature … However, to meet the problems of the immediate post-war action in other directions will also be required. The liberated countries, and maybe others too, will require an initial pool of resources to carry them through the transitional period. To organize the transition to peaceful activities will need the collaboration of the United States, of ourselves, and of all free countries which have not themselves suffered the ravages of war. The Dominions and ourselves can make our contribution to this because the British Empire will actually possess overseas enormous stocks of food and materials, which we are accumulating so as to ease the problems of the overseas producers during the war, and of reconstructed Europe after the war.

No one can suppose that the economic reorganization of Europe after the Allied victory will be an easy task. But we shall not shirk our opportunity and our responsibility to bear our share of the burdens. The peaceful brotherhood of nations, with due liberty to each to develop its own balanced economic life and its characteristic culture, will be the common object. But it is the transition to this end which presents the problem. It is the establishment of an international economic system, capable of translating the technical possibilities of production into actual plenty, and maintaining the whole population in a continuous fruitful activity, which is difficult. The world cannot expect to solve the economic riddle easily or completely. But the free nations of America, the Dominions and ourselves alone possess a command of the material means.

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, speech at the Mansion House in London, 29th of May 1941

The Effect of World War II on India

India has been profoundly affected by the changed relationship between Europeans and Asiatics which began with the defeat of Russia by Japan at the beginning of the century. The hitherto axiomatic acceptance of the innate superiority of the European over the Asiatic sustained a severe blow. The balance of prestige, always so important in the East, changed. The reverses which we and the Americans are sustaining from the Japanese at the present time will continue this process … The fact that we are now accepting Chinese aid in our war against the Axis Powers and are necessarily driven to a belated recognition of China as an equal and of Chinese as fellow fighters for civilization against barbarism makes the Indian ask why he, too, cannot be master in his own house. Similarly, the success against the Axis of a semi-oriental people, the Russians, lends weight to the hypothesis that the East is now asserting itself against the long dominance of the West. If the successful outcome of the war is recognized as due to the co-operation of the big four: Britain, the USA, the USSR and China, the two Asiatic powers will claim a powerful voice in the settlement … Incidentally, American sentiment has always lent strongly to the idea of Indian freedom. The increasingly large contribution in blood and tears and sweat made by Indians will not be forgotten and will be fully exploited by Indians who have not themselves contributed …

After having tried to assist in dealing with the constitutional problem of India for some five or six years I have no temptation to ignore the complexities of the problem, complexities which are made harder, not easier, by the war, more and not less urgent by the approach of the war to the confines of India … It is one of the great achievements of our rule in India that, even if they do not entirely carry them out, educated Indians do accept British principles of justice and liberty. We are condemned by Indians not by the measure of Indian ethical conceptions but by our own, which we have taught them to accept. It is precisely this acceptance by politically conscious Indians of the principles of democracy and liberty which puts us in the position of being able to appeal to them to take part with us in the common struggle; but the success of this appeal and India's response does put upon us the obligation of seeing that we, as far as we may, make them sharers in the things for which we and they are fighting. While I have little or no faith in the value of “gestures,” I do consider that now is the time for an act of statesmanship. To mark time is to lose India … I consider that the best chance of getting a settlement would be by the method of private and informal meetings of a very few men … There is precedent for such action. Lord Durham saved Canada to the British Empire. We need a man to do in India what Durham did in Canada … Delay will only make the problem harder. My conclusion therefore is that a representative with power to negotiate within wide limits should be sent to India now, either as a special envoy or in replacement of the present Viceroy, and that a Cabinet Committee should be appointed to draw up terms of reference and powers.

“The Indian Political Situation,” Memorandum by the Lord Privy Seal, Clement Attlee, for the War Cabinet, February 1942 

Chapter 12

A Vision for the Welfare State

So far as Britain's contribution is concerned, this war will have been won by its people, not by any one man or set of men, though strong and greatly valued leadership has been given to the high resolve of the people in the present struggle. And in this leadership the Labour Ministers have taken their full share of burdens and responsibilities. The record of the Labour Ministers has been one of hard tasks well done since that fateful day in May, 1940, when the initiative of Labour in Parliament brought about the fall of the Chamberlain Government and the formation of the new War Government which has led the country to victory. The people made tremendous efforts to win the last war also. But when they had won it they lacked a lively interest in the social and economic problems of peace, and accepted the election promises of the leaders of the anti-Labour parties at their face value. So the “hard-faced men who had done well out of the war” were able to get the kind of peace that suited themselves. The people lost that peace. And when we say “peace” we mean not only the Treaty, but the social and economic policy which followed the fighting …

Britain’s coming election will be the greatest test in our history of the judgment and common sense of our people. The nation wants food, work, and homes. It wants more than that – it wants good food in plenty, useful work for all, and comfortable, labor-saving homes that take full advantage of the resources of modern science and productive industry. It wants a high and rising standard of living, security for all against a rainy day, an educational system that will give every boy and girl a chance to develop the best that is in them. These are the aims. In themselves they are no more than words. All parties may declare that in principle they agree with them. But the test of a political program is whether it is sufficiently in earnest about the objectives to adopt the means needed to realize them. It is very easy to set out a list of aims. What matters is whether it is backed up by a genuine workmanlike plan conceived without regard to sectional vested interests and carried through. Point by point these national aims need analysis. Point by point it will be found that if they are to be turned into realities the nation and its post-war governments will be called upon to put the nation above any sectional interest, above any free enterprise. The problems and pressures of the post-war world threaten our security and progress as surely as – though less dramatically than – the Germans threatened them in 1940. We need the spirit of Dunkirk and of the Blitz sustained over a period of years.

The Labour Party’s program is a practical expression of that spirit applied to the tasks of peace. It calls for hard work, energy and sound sense. We must prevent another war, and that means we must have such an international organization as will give all nations real security against future aggression. But Britain can only play her full part in such an international plan if our spirit as shown in our handling of home affairs is firm, wise and determined. This statement of policy, therefore, begins at home … The Labour Party stands for freedom – for freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. The Labour Party will see to it that we keep and enlarge these freedoms, and that we enjoy again the personal civil liberties we have, of our own free will, sacrificed to win the war … But there are certain so-called freedoms that Labour will not tolerate: freedom to exploit other people; freedom to pay poor wages and to push up prices for selfish profit; freedom to deprive the people of the means of living full, happy, healthy lives.

The nation needs a tremendous overhaul, a great program of modernization and re-equipment of its homes, its factories and machinery, its schools, its social services. All parties say so – the Labour Party means it. For the Labour Party is prepared to achieve it by drastic policies and keeping a firm constructive hand on our whole productive machinery; the Labour Party will put the community first and the sectional interests of private business after. Labour will plan from the ground up – giving an appropriate place to constructive enterprise and private endeavor in the national plan, but dealing decisively with those interests which would use high-sounding talk about economic freedom to cloak their determination to put themselves and their wishes above those of the whole nation.

“Let Us Face the Future,” Labour Party Election Manifesto (1945)

The British Government Apologizes for Bloody Sunday

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behavior of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong. Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander. He finds that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army. He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of [the] support company was armed with a firearm. He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties. And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire … Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground. The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son … Mr. Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say. But Mr. Speaker, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honor all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth … I know that some people wonder whether, nearly forty years on from an event, if a prime minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and the hurt of that day and with a lifetime of loss … Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible. And over 1000 members – 1000 members – of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened … Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude we all owe to those who served in Northern Ireland … Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland. Those are words we cannot and must not ignore. But I hope what this report can also do is mark the moment where we come together in this House and in the communities we represent to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us. And come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland’s troubled past. That is not to say we should ever forget or dismiss the past, but we must also move on.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, speech to the House of Commons, 15th of June 2010

Britain Contemplates Entry into the European Common Market

Entry into the European Communities would not of course affect the position of the monarchy, nor would it in itself have any effect on the constitutional position of the Crown in Parliament. There are five other monarchs among the members and applicants. There is no question of any of these giving up their sovereignty, nor of there being a Community head of state or even a Community State to be head of. The Community will be a Community of sovereign states. The United Kingdom would continue to be a sovereign independent state just as present members of the European Community are. We would for example continue to participate in international organizations such as the United Nations, whose membership is open to sovereign states. By entering the Community the United Kingdom would be undertaking certain international obligations in the fields covered by the European treaties. Like obligations in other treaties which are binding upon the United Kingdom, these obligations would affect the United Kingdom’s freedom of action, but only in the fields covered by the treaties. Those fields are limited to certain economic and commercial affairs and closely related matters; they do not include defense … The Community system rests on the original consent and on the continuing consent of member states and therefore of national governments. Nothing in the treaties requires member states to change the procedures of their legislative bodies. Parliament will continue to exercise control over the actions of their ministers and ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the part they and their officials play in the formation of government policy. In legislating Parliament would of course have to take account of Community obligations and refrain from enacting legislation contrary to those obligations, just as we already do in connection with other treaties. By far the greater part of our domestic law would be unaffected. Only certain provisions of Community law, primarily regulations made by the Council and the Commission, apply directly as law in member states. In the Community all major decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers, on which we should be represented. Although the European treaties provide for majority voting on most matters, the member states recognize that it is not in practice possible to force another member state to act contrary to its vital national interests.

Brief by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 16th of July 1971

Chapter 13

The Impact of Indian Independence on the British Commonwealth

Top Secret

The transfer of political power in India to Indians will affect Great Britain and the British Commonwealth in three principal issues: strategy, economics, and prestige. This note is an attempt to assess very briefly our prospective gains and losses in each of these fields. The principal advantage that Britain and the Commonwealth derive from control of India is strategic. The greatest asset is India’s manpower. The War of 1939–45 could hardly have been won without India’s contribution of two million soldiers, which strengthened the British Empire at its weakest point. India was also, during this period, a very valuable base of war … The naval bases in India and Ceylon have enabled the British Navy to dominate the whole of the Indian Ocean region, except for a short interlude in the last war; these bases are of importance for the protection of oil supplies from Persia and the Persian Gulf …

On the economic side there is a very valuable trade connection between India and the UK. In 1944 India was one of the countries with the largest import and export trade with Britain. British business has also had in the past a considerable share in industry in India, especially jute and tea. There has lately been a tendency to sell out British undertakings at high prices to Indian capitalists, but the British stake in Indian industry is still large. As India’s commerce and industry expand, there seems every reason that British business, both in India and in the UK should also benefit increasingly. Britain is still the natural market from which Indian importers are likely to seek their requirements; and sterling balances will greatly strengthen the connection. British technical skill is also highly valued in India. As the prosperity of India expands it will become a most important market for the import of consumer goods of every kind, in which Britain should have a great share. Although Britain is likely in time to lose her privileged position in regard to shipping on the UK-India routes, it will take India some considerable time to build up a shipping industry. In international prestige, Great Britain should on the whole gain by her transfer of power, provided that this results in an orderly and friendly India.

The general conclusion is that on the whole Great Britain should not lose, but on the contrary, may gain in prestige and even in power, by handing over to Indians, provided that the following main conditions are fulfilled:

1. Power can be transferred in an orderly manner to a friendly and united India.
2. A satisfactory defensive alliance can be secured.

These two provisions are the crux of the whole matter. If India lapses into chaos, Britain will lose trade, strategic advantages, and prestige, and a danger to world peace will be created. The worst possible outcome from Britain’s point of view will be if India, either through lack of responsible government or by communist revolution, or by deliberate choice, falls under the control of Russia. Britain will then have sacrificed her own position and given nothing to India … Unfortunately there is every prospect of an Indian government being ineffective. It is a tremendous task to take over control of a country as large and diverse as India. There is no evidence that either the political or the administrative capacity to do so exists. If the Indian government does turn out to be weak and incompetent, the country is likely to lapse into chaos and disorder … To sum up it is vital to Britain that when she gives over political power in India she may be able to hand over to a stable and friendly government and contract with it a genuine defensive alliance. Fortunately India’s interests quite obviously point the same way. If this objective is achieved the demission of political power may bring advantage and not loss. In all other circumstances the debit balance will be heavy.

Lord Wavell, Viceroy of India, “On the Results to the British Commonwealth on the Transfer of Political Power in India,” 13th of July 1946

Change Comes to the British Empire

It is … a special privilege for me to be here in 1960 when you are celebrating what I might call the golden wedding of the Union [of South Africa] … In the fifty years of their nationhood the people of South Africa have built a strong economy founded upon a healthy agriculture and thriving and resilient industries … We in Britain are proud of the contribution we have made to this remarkable achievement. Much of it has been financed by British capital … As I’ve travelled around the Union I have found everywhere, as I expected a deep preoccupation with what is happening in the rest of the African continent. I understand and sympathize with your interests in these events and your anxiety about them. Ever since the break-up of the Roman Empire one of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations. They have come into existence over the centuries in different forms, different kinds of government, but all have been inspired by a deep, keen feeling of nationalism, which has grown as the nations have grown. In the twentieth century, and especially since the end of the war, the processes which gave birth to the nation states of Europe have been repeated all over the world. We have seen the awakening of national consciousness in peoples who have for centuries lived in dependence upon some other power. Fifteen years ago this movement spread through Asia. Many countries there, of different races and civilizations, pressed their claim to an independent national life.

Today the same thing is happening in Africa, and the most striking of all the impressions I have formed since I left London a month ago is of the strength of this African national consciousness. In different places it takes different forms, but it is happening everywhere. The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it … This tide of national consciousness which is now rising in Africa, is a fact, for which both you and we, and the other nations of the western world are ultimately responsible … As I see it the great issue in this second half of the twentieth century is whether the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa will swing to the East or to the West. Will they be drawn into the Communist camp? Or will the great experiments in self-government that are now being made in Asia and Africa, especially within the Commonwealth, prove so successful, and by their example so compelling, that the balance will come down in favour of freedom and order and justice? The struggle is joined, and it is a struggle for the minds of men. What is now on trial is much more than our military strength or our diplomatic and administrative skill. It is our way of life.

British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, “Wind of Change” Speech, 3rd of February 1960

Colonial Immigrants in the United Kingdom

During the past thirty years groups of colonials have been domiciled in Great Britain. Originally they came here as seamen in the 1914–18 war. After the war, many settled down, married and have lived here ever since. They have produced a group of citizens of mixed birth … The fathers were for the most part negroes from West Africa, the West Indies, and Somaliland; also from Aden. A smaller proportion come from Ceylon, Malaya, and Hong Kong … These seamen settled, for the most part, in the sea-port towns which were familiar to them – viz. Liverpool, London, Cardiff, North and South Shields, and Hull … There are reasons for thinking that at the commencement of the late war these communities in the towns aforementioned numbered 15,000 persons. This estimate of course must include English wives. In all of the sea-port towns mentioned above, the colonial communities live in the most depressed and sordid part of the town. In Liverpool and Cardiff in particular their districts are no more nor less than “coloured ghettoes” … The relationship between these sea-port coloured communities and the rest of the population has varied from place to place, and over periods of time. Liverpool and Cardiff, which contain the largest communities, have not had a very good history. The riots of 1919 in Liverpool and in Cardiff will be recalled …

During and since the last war a great change for better relationship has come about. Perhaps less visible progress has been made in Liverpool than elsewhere. Conditions in Liverpool are not improved by the continual influx of seamen, bona fide and otherwise plus stowaways, many of whom appear to be unemployable. Because of the existing coloured communities described above, colonial workers (i.e., people arriving in the United Kingdom from the colonies in search of employment) usually go direct either to Liverpool or Cardiff, with London a close third. It is in these places in particular that accommodation generally and especially for coloured people is most difficult to obtain. With the exception of London, the other sea-port towns still regard all coloured people as seamen, and as belonging to the local coloured community, and they expect them to keep their places and live within the section of the city occupied by the coloured community. The result is that unscrupulous lodging-house keepers, who know all the local circumstances, batten on these inexperienced new comers. There can be no doubt that the most undesirable thing which can happen is that large numbers of new coloured workers should be forced or encouraged to go into these areas. It is true to say, however, that if they are to be in these sea-port towns their chances of obtaining accommodation outside these “ghetto” districts are negligible.

The specific question of accommodation of workers who have arrived recently, and the prospects of accommodation for any who may come in the future is now considered. The Empire Windrush and Orbita men presented a serious problem in the matter of lodgings. It is well known that approximately two hundred Empire Windrush men were accommodated for some time at the deep [bomb] shelter in Clapham; another fifty or so at the Colonial Servicemen’s Hostel, Wimpole Street … The Colonial Office has no financial authority in peace time to establish and arrange industrial hostels. Through the good offices of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health recent arrivals … have been accommodated in appropriate government hostels. Firms wishing to employ the labour have in a few isolated instances helped in the accommodation problems … Many men could have been employed in the Midlands, especially Birmingham, but accommodation was not available. In Liverpool and Cardiff, where somehow or other coloured men can squeeze in with the coloured community, are areas where the Ministry of Labour have indicated unemployment exists. The position is that men who could not be placed in the provinces on account of accommodation difficulties drifted to Liverpool and Cardiff to swell the already large number of unemployed coloured people in those areas.

It would appear from experience that the first difficulty is the accommodation of coloured workers, not the question of finding them work. It should be recorded that despite the social difficulties confronting these people, those anxious to find work, usually find employment, especially those who are willing to refrain from taking the least line of resistance by migrating to Liverpool and Cardiff … It might be observed here that the town of Bolton is a good example of how a small colonial labour force can be integrated into the ordinary life of an English community. The colonial workers numbered about one hundred, most of who were accommodated in a hostel. Bolton had no “colour problem” and the men settled down. Many have remained there and they have been joined by some West Indians who were formerly in the RAF. In order to get the best out of the colonial workers careful attention must be given to their accommodation and their welfare consistently supervised until they become completely acclimatized. This process may take as long as twelve months.

Working Party on the Employment in the United Kingdom of Surplus Colonial Labour, “Colonial Office Experience of Colonial Workers in the United Kingdom” (1948)

Chapter 14

The Hunger Strikes in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland: Hunger Strike in Maze Prison

Line to Take

We cannot accept that those who commit crimes for political motives should be treated differently from other convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland.

We will not negotiate on “political status.”

The Northern Ireland prison regime is fair and equitable.

We are always prepared to discuss improvements in conditions on humanitarian grounds.

Background Note

Over 400 prisoners in Maze prison and 29 in Armagh continue to protest in support of demands for “political status.” Four prisoners in Maze are on hunger strike. One of them, Robert Sands, has refused food since 1 March (41 days on 10 April) and is a candidate in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election on 9 April. None of the hunger strikers is yet in a critical condition.

You requested some background material on this subject for the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with Secretary Haig.

Northern Ireland Prisons Situation

1. Republican prisoners are continuing protest action in support of their claim for “political status.” This would involve Government accepting that crimes committed for political motives should be treated differently from other crimes and permitting such prisoners to enjoy a more lenient prison regime than others. At present there are over 400 male prisoners in the Maze Prison (now on a “clean” protest) and 29 female prisoners in Armagh on a “no-work” protest. In addition as part of this protest there are currently 4 male prisoners on hunger strike. The first, Robert Sands, started to refuse food on 1 March. He has now been joined by 3 other prisoners. The condition of none of the hunger strikers is yet giving cause for serious concern.
2. A recent development in the protest has been the candidature of the hunger striker Sands in the Westminster by-election for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which will take place on 9 April. The election has ended up as a straight fight between Sands and an Official Unionist, Harry West. Sands [sic] supporters are claiming that a vote for him will strengthen his claim to political status and will force the Government to concede on this point, thus bringing the hunger strike to an end.

Line to Take

1. The Government’s position is that the present Northern Ireland Prison Regime is fair and equitable but that it is of course always prepared to consider improvements. However, it has remained adamant that it is not prepared to negotiate on the question of “political status” for prisoners, whatever the form of protest action taken. The Government’s position has the full support of Parliament and is in line with the European Commission on Human Rights’ decision that prisoners are not entitled to special status. As far as the election is concerned the Government has not made any public comment pending the result. However, there is no reason to think that present policy on “political status” will be changed even if Sands was to win.

Brief Prepared for Lord Carrington, British Foreign Secretary, in Preparation for his Meeting with Alexander Haig, American Secretary of State, 8th of April 1981, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, NIO/12/196A

The Conflict in the Falklands and a New Vision for Britain

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=104989

Thatcher’s Vision for the European Union

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107332

Chapter 15

A Peace Plan for Northern Ireland

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

1. (i) recognize the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;
2. (ii) recognize that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;
3. (iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;
4. (iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;
5. (v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;
6. (vi) recognize the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Belfast [“Good Friday”] Agreement (1998)

The “Dodgy Dossier” and the Iraq War

The main vehicle for the government’s use of intelligence in the public presentation of policy was the dossier of September 2002 and accompanying ministerial statements. The dossier broke new ground in three ways: the JIC [Joint Intelligence Committee] had never previously produced a public document; no Government case for any international action had previously been made to the British public through explicitly drawing on a JIC publication; and the authority of the British intelligence community, and the JIC in particular, had never been used in such a public way. The dossier was not intended to make the case for a particular course of action in relation to Iraq. It was intended by the government to inform domestic and international understanding of the need for stronger action (though not necessarily military action) – the general direction in which government policy had been moving since the early months of 2002, away from containment to a more proactive approach to enforcing Iraqi disarmament. The Government wanted an unclassified document on which it could draw in its advocacy of its policy. The JIC sought to offer a dispassionate assessment of intelligence and other material on Iraqi nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile programs. The JIC, with commendable motives, took responsibility for the dossier, in order that its content should properly reflect the judgments of the intelligence community. They did their utmost to ensure this standard was met. But this will have put a strain on them in seeking to maintain their normal standards of neutral and objective assessment. Strenuous efforts were made to ensure that no individual statements were made in the dossier which went beyond the judgments of the JIC. But, in translating material from JIC assessments into the dossier, warnings were lost about the limited intelligence base on which some aspects of these assessments were being made. Language in the dossier may have left with readers the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgments than was the case: our view, having reviewed all of the material, is that judgments in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available. We conclude that it was a serious weakness that the JIC’s warnings on the limitations of the intelligence underlying its judgments were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier … We conclude that, if intelligence is to be used more widely by governments in public debate in future, those doing so must be careful to explain its uses and limitations. It will be essential, too, that clearer and more effective dividing lines between assessment and advocacy are established when doing so.

Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [The “Butler Report”] (2004)

The End of Multiculturalism?

Today, I want to focus my remarks on terrorism … The biggest threat to our security comes from terrorist attacks – some of which are sadly carried out by our own citizens … We won’t defeat terrorism simply by the actions we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries … The root lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. And I would argue an important reason so many young Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity. What I’m about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But they also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone they don’t want to is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. For sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight. What we see is a process of radicalization. Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these interactions engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply …

Instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone … Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex, or sexuality. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe in these things. Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty. There are practical things we can do as well. That includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home. And ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum … I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power, away from the state and to people. That way common purpose can be formed, as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity so people feel free to say yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian but I am also a Londoner or a Berliner, too. It’s that identity – that feeling of belonging in our countries that is the key to achieving true cohesion.

David Cameron, speech at Munich Security Conference, February 5th, 2011