Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War: Popular Imperialism in Britain, 1914-1932 0773539611, 9780773539617

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1 The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League: The National Service League during the First World War
2 Educating Imperialists: The League of the Empire during the First World War
3 A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism: The Victoria League during the First World War
4 The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?: The Victoria League and the League of the Empire in the1920s
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z

Citation preview

organized patriotism and the crucible of war

This page intentionally left blank

preface

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War Popular Imperialism in Britain, 1914–1932 matthew c. hendley

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

iii

iv

preface

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2012 isbn 978-0-7735-3961-7 Legal deposit first quarter 2012 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Hendley, Matthew, 1966– Organized patriotism and the crucible of war : popular imperialism in Britain, 1914–1932 / Matthew Hendley. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-7735-3961-7 1. Patriotic societies – Great Britain – History – 20th century. 2. Great Britain – History – George V, 1910– 1936. 3. Great Britain – Politics and government – 1910– 1936. 4. Women – Great Britain – Societies and clubs – History – 20th century. I. Title. hs2375.h45 2012

369'.24109041

c2011-907118-5

This book was typeset by True to Type in 10.5/13 Sabon

Acknowledgments

To Michelle

v

This page intentionally left blank

preface

Contents

Acknowledgments ix Introduction 3 1 The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League: The National Service League during the First World War 11 2 Educating Imperialists: The League of the Empire during the First World War 67 3 A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism: The Victoria League during the First World War 115 4 The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?: The Victoria League and the League of the Empire in the 1920s 173 Conclusion 225 Notes 229 Bibliography 305 Index 343

vii

This page intentionally left blank

preface

ix

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the many people and organizations that helped with this book and the many kindnesses that helped spur it towards completion. It has been a long journey from the conception of the project to the final stage. The financial support of the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the Associates of the University of Toronto granted towards the initial research for this book is gratefully acknowledged. A sabbatical and later a course release from the State University of New York – College at Oneonta (suny Oneonta) also proved crucial. The author is deeply grateful to the anonymous readers for McGill-Queen’s University Press as well as to Mary-Lynne Ascough, Joan Harcourt, Joan McGilvray, Lesley Andrassy, Ryan Van Huijstee, and Donald Akenson. Thanks are also offered to Ruth Pincoe for writing the index. The following authorities granted permission to quote from archival sources: The League of the Empire Papers (Anne Tomlinson, Director of the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers); Lord Curzon Papers (the British Library Board and Hon. Richard Curzon); Lord Milner Papers (the Warden and Fellows of New College, Oxford); Macmillan Archives (British Library Board); the Rhodes Trust Papers (the Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford); R.J.K. Mott Papers and Lord Roberts Papers (the Council of the National Army Museum); Royal Commonwealth Society Collections (the Syndics of Cambridge University Library); Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women (the Women’s Library, London Metropolitan University); the Victoria League Papers (Lyn Hopkins, Chairman of the Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship). Extracts from

x

Acknowledgments

the papers of London House appear with the permission of Mark Lewis, Director of Development at Goodenough College. Extracts from their papers appear with permission of the following: F.S. Oliver (Robin Farquhar-Oliver), Sir Gregory Foster and Ernest Gardner (University College London Library Services, Special Collections), Arthur Lehman Goodhart (Sir Philip Goodhart), Lady M.E. Jersey (Lord Jersey), Gilbert Murray (Alexander Murray), J.S. Sandars (Bodleian Library), Lord and Lady Forster (W.S. Pease) and Lady Violet Milner (The Hon. Julian Hardinge). The Parliamentary Archives have granted permission to reproduce extracts from the writings of P.J. Hannon but do not have information about the current copyright holder. Similarly, Senate House Library at the University of London has granted permission to reproduce extracts from the writings of Albert Pollard but do not have information about the current copyright holders of letters found within the collection. It has not been possible to trace the current copyright holders of the papers of Sir Edward Tyas Cook or for short extracts from the unpublished writings of the following individuals found within other archival collections: Hugh Egerton, Gerald Hankin, Sir Philip Hutchins, Roderick Macleod, Sir Frederick Pollock, and George Shee. If these are brought to my notice, I will be happy to include appropriate acknowledgments in any future reprints. The topic of this book was first considered during the writing of a master’s thesis at McGill University on the conscription movement in Edwardian Britain. I thank my master’s thesis supervisor Martin Petter and Robert Vogel for helping me to begin my research journey. From 1991 to 1998 my academic home was the University of Toronto. At Toronto, my first thanks must go to Trevor Lloyd for supervising the original thesis to completion. His patience and good humour were appreciated as were his detailed comments on all the various drafts of this book and related conference papers and articles. Other professors at Toronto to be thanked are Ann Robson, Richard Helmstadter, Michael Marrus, and Carl Berger. Professors at other universities have also kindly offered their time and expertise at various stages of this work. Special thanks are offered to R.J.Q. Adams (Texas A & M University), Stephen Brooke (York University), Anne Clendinning (Nipissing University), Fred Leventhal (Boston University), Martin Francis (University of Cincinnati), Richard Rempel (McMaster University), and Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska (University of Illinois at

Acknowledgments

xi

Chicago). For help from abroad, thanks are extended to Julie Gottlieb, Rohan McWilliam, and Martin Pugh. Thanks also must go to the support staff in the Department of History at the University of Toronto. The administrative talents of Jan Hazelton and Jennifer Francisco were especially helpful. Many others at the University of Toronto offered friendship and support, and read and offered comment on portions of the original dissertation and related projects. Special thanks to Joe Behar, Adam Crerar, Simon Devereaux, Andrea Flanagan, Denise Gout, Tim Jenks, Andrea McKenzie, Allyson May, Greg Smith, Deb Van Seters, and Sherisse Webb. Stephen Heathorn and Paul Deslandes both gave invaluable assistance on the dissertation and generously read and offered critical advice on the final manuscript. Nevertheless, any errors in the book are my own. Since 2001 my academic home has been the State University of New York – College at Oneonta. My colleagues in the History Department helped me in many ways and I thank them all: Bill Ashbaugh, Thomas Beal, Dora Dumont, Jeff Fortin, Julie Freeman, Mette Harder, April Harper, Dan Larkin, Miguel Leon, Yuriy Malikov, Kathleen O’Mara, Ibram Rogers, Josh Rosenthal, Bill Simons, and Ralph Watkins (now sadly deceased). Outside the History Department my thinking about my book was enriched through conversations with Tracy Allen, Susan Bernardin, Rob Compton, Brian Haley, Gina Keel, Brian Lowe, Ho Hon Leung, Dan Payne, Alex Thomas, and others. Additional administrative and technical support was given at suny Oneonta by Diana Moseman, Kelly Spettel, and Sharon Corna. I give special thanks to my fellow historians and friends from neighbouring Hartwick College in Oneonta, Sean Kelley and Vicki Howard. Thanks to the college for granting me the sabbatical leave essential for finishing the project and to the Redfield Fund and the Grants Office for helping arrange funding to help purchase microfilm and support further research trips to McMaster University. Special thanks to Dean Julie Freeman for a grant to help cover the cost of writing the index. I thank all the numerous librarians and archivists in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States who contributed to this project. They are too numerous to mention in full but some prominent names include Mary McArthur of the Reference Department at Robarts Library and the staff at the Inter-Library Loan Department at Robarts. Numerous archival staff in Britain made this book possible.

xii

Acknowledgments

Much time was spent in the Modern Political Papers room at the Bodelian Library at Oxford and special thanks to Colin Harris and Helen Langley for their help. I also want to thank Martin Maw, the Conservative Party Archivist and the staff at the Rhodes House library at Oxford. The British Library and the Colindale Newspaper Library also yielded numerous delights to this overseas researcher. The Royal Commonwealth Society Collections at Cambridge was a pleasant environment to work in thanks in large part to the help of Terry Barringer. Special thanks to K.V. Bligh, assistant archivist at the House of Lords Record Office (now the Parliamentary Archives) and G.M. Bayliss, Keeper in the Department of Printed Books at the Imperial War Museum. The staff at the India Office Library (now part of the main British Library), London School of Economics, Institute for Commonwealth Studies, University of London, University College, London, National Army Museum, Public Record Office, and Fawcett Library of Women’s History at the London Guildhall University (now the Women’s Library, London Metropolitan University) were all immensely helpful. As the sources for this book are widespread, special thanks are extended to the staff of the successor organizations of the patriotic leagues discussed in this study for accommodating my research. At the Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship, the General Secretary, Anna Keller and the Warden, Sue Wilson, gave me ample space, residence, and help with photocopying, which was greatly appreciated. Patricia Swain, the Director at the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, allowed me access to their organization and Steve Browning shared results of his own research into the League of the Empire as well as documents that survived the Blitz. Thanks also to Sir David Thorne, the Director General of the Commonwealth Trust, for taking the time to meet with me. Thanks to W.S. Pease, the descendant of Lord and Lady Forster, who kindly received me at Lepe House and allowed me to look at the unarchived papers of his ancestors. I thank the librarians at Milne Library at suny Oneonta, who gave me special help, such as Mary Lynn Bensen, Heather Beach, Michelle Hendley, and Elaine Downing. Friends far and wide, such as Ignac and Liz Kolenko, Vanessa Lu, and David Chaikoff, also served as inspirations. Last, but definitely not least, thanks to my family. My grandparents, aunts, and uncles all offered inspiration in their individual ways. My parents, Margaret and Brian Hendley, offered more help and love

Acknowledgments

xiii

throughout the arduous road of graduate school and life than can ever be fully returned. My brother, Nathan, my sister Alicia, her husband Joel, and her children Daniel, Meghan, Max, and Sam, all provided pleasant distractions from the academic grind. My in-laws Jackie and Bob Nicholson, Bruce Swaby and Felicia Fallen (and their children Noah and Ethan) and Kathryn and Eric Rogers all showed considerable patience with my inexplicable fascination with academic life. My two children Jonathon and Sara Hendley enriched my life and kept me from obsessing exclusively about my manuscript. Agatha Grant gave her love and support to all the Oneonta Hendleys. Most important of all, thanks are offered to my dear wife Michelle, who can claim to have been in my life even longer than this book! She nurtured me through trans-Atlantic research trips, scholarship applications, graduate school, and the road to tenure at an American college. She did all of this while pursuing her own career and education and helping to raise our two children in often uncertain economic times. It is with my utmost respect and love that I dedicate this work to her.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

organized patriotism and the crucible of war

1

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

Two key questions lie at the heart of this book: How did the First World War affect the great British patriotic and imperialist leagues of the Edwardian period? Which organizations were best able to survive in a changed political and social environment, and why? This book provides an answer to these questions through a close examination of three patriotic and imperialist leagues in Great Britain between 1914 and 1932: the National Service League, the Victoria League, and the League of the Empire. In 1914 patriotic and imperialist leagues were a major part of the cultural and political landscape of Great Britain. During the Great War, the certainties of the Edwardian period seemed under question. By 1932 the fluid situation of the wartime and immediate post 1918 period had been clarified. With the massive electoral victory of the National Government in 1931, the passage of the Statute of Westminster in the same year (which re-defined the constitutional relationship between Britain and the Dominions as one of equality), and the start of imperial preference with the Ottawa Agreement of 1932, the political landscape had settled in a manner favourable to the continuity of organized patriotic and popular imperialist movements from the pre-war period. The history of patriotic and imperialist organizations in early twentieth century Britain is incomplete. There has been little effort to establish continuity between the pre-war and post-war periods. Much of the writing on organized patriotism has taken its chronological lead from classical works such as Arthur Marwick’s The Deluge, which argued that most of the existing social attitudes and social structures were swept away by the war.1 Following this teleology, most studies of

4

Introduction

specific Edwardian patriotic groups confidently terminate in 1914, as if no further comment were necessary.2 That being said, modern scholarship has begun to question the older notion of a stark divide between interwar and pre-war Britain. Feminist historians have tried to provide a corrective to this overly broad picture, questioning the actual progress made by women during the war and pointing to the re-establishment of traditional gender hierarchies soon after the cessation of hostilities.3 Revisionist syntheses such as Gerard J. De Groot’s Blighty may go too far by arguing for the overwhelming “resilience of pre-war social structures and attitudes.”4 Adrian Gregory has focused on the divisions the war created and how “the language of sacrifice” was remade during the war and the post-war period to create a mythology stressing “universal grief as the common experience of war.”5 It is safe to say that there is now a growing consensus among historians that the First World War, while undoubtedly important, was not in itself the social, political, and cultural earthquake that was previously assumed. Historians of the interwar period have often pointed to the outpouring of pacifist and anti-war literature and the lack of enthusiasm for exuberant patriotic display in the 1920s.6 Such analyses assume that the absence of the most public and vibrant forms of organized patriotism and imperialism can be equated with the marginalization of all of its pre-war forms. This is incorrect. British society was undeniably different in 1919 from in 1914. Certain types of organized patriotism and imperialism were not viable after 1918. Some of the voices arguing for nation and empire were clearly interwar creations. However, these factors do not mean that pre-war patriotic organizations disappeared after 1918. The First World War was a crucible for organized patriotism but it did not destroy it. The patriotic organizations and their messages changed because of their wartime experiences. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that many of the groups endured. The historiographical consensus on continuity between the pre-war and interwar period needs to be expanded to include patriotic and imperialist organizations. In addition to questions of continuity between the wartime and post-war periods, an understanding of both the gendered aspects of the evolution of organized patriotism and the changing nature of associational culture is crucial. Gender history is now re-configuring the historiography of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century

Introduction

5

British imperialism. In the past, it was a given that the British Empire was “a very masculine enterprise.”7 Consequently, scholarship on British imperialism used to be heavily oriented towards traditional studies of the economics, diplomacy, politics, and military strategy of the Empire. Gender history does not ignore these areas but approaches the study of all historical phenomena with two important assumptions. First, it assumes that “gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes.” Second, it assumes that “gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power.”8 Although gender history has examined the presence of British women in the Empire and the impact of the Empire on women, it has done more than add women to the historiographical picture.9 Some of the most interesting work in the gender history of imperialism has looked at subjects as varied as the martial races of India, the impact of the Empire on everyday life, and colonial constructions of sexuality and masculinity.10 Much remains to be done to fulfill the promise of gender history for understanding British imperialism.11 This book’s contribution is a study, informed by gender history, of the evolution of organized patriotic movements as affected by wartime conflict. Associational culture is not as well developed an area of study as gender history. Nevertheless, a knowledge of how middle class Britons associated in organized groups, who was included in such groups, and what activities and discourse were permissible in such groups is crucial for understanding civil society and the political culture of modern Britain. Political culture has always been more than the sum of the activities of political parties. Historians of the post-1945 period such as Lawrence Black have noted the importance of studying political culture (which he defines as “politics in its widest social setting”) as manifested throughout pressure groups and social movements not always directly tied to political parties.12 After 1918 a major change in associational culture occurred, which the successful patriotic organizations were able to negotiate. Ross McKibbin has suggested that the success of the Conservative Party in interwar Britain was the result of a “depoliticization of social relations” and the rise of an “apolitical sociability” that prevented personal and social relations from being poisoned by political extremism.13 Helen McCarthy has moved beyond McKibbin’s interpretation to argue for a more nuanced view of interwar political culture. Middle class associations were commit-

6

Introduction

ted to non-partisanship and greater gender equality. McCarthy points to the growth of non-party associational bodies with mass memberships in interwar Britain that were “strongly vested in a discourse of active citizenship and committed to creating and defending a space within associational life which was free from partisan or sectarian conflict.”14 She has noted how many interwar associations, even sexsegregated service clubs such as the Rotary International and Women’s Provisional Club, changed to reflect “a more equal balance of power between the sexes and new gendered forms of citizenship.”15 Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War has been strongly influenced by the new gender history and some of the recent scholarship on associational culture. It uses gender as a category of analysis to understand the varying fortunes of organized patriotic movements during the First World War. It focuses sharply on organizations that were able to emphasize political non-partisanship and give women more active positions of power. At the same time, it draws inspiration from older, more traditional historiography on the transformation of British politics and society due to the First World War. Joan Wallach Scott was one the first historians to point to the utility of gender as an analytical tool for historians.16 However, gender history has not branched out into the study of twentieth-century British politics and political culture as well as it should. Susan Pedersen once remarked that despite its promise, gender history risks being marginalized if it concentrates only on cultural history with a focus on questions of identity and subjectivity. She called for historians to embrace gender analysis to understand political change better.17 I agree. I also believe that gender history can illuminate an understanding of the popular right. What this book sets out to do is to show how popular imperialism and organized patriotism continued to have an important influence during the First World War and beyond on a variety of areas in Britain, including domestic politics, the educational system, and imperial migration. Insights gained from gender history and associational culture help explain why this was so. In a sense, organized patriotic movements succeeded when they were able to move away from the pre-war model of activist partisanship and embrace a post-war associational culture that was more non-partisan and domestically oriented. A close comparative study of these organizations offers a micro study into the greater continuities of pre- and post-war Britain.

Introduction

7

The three patriotic and imperialist leagues examined in this book had distinct characteristics. The National Service League was militaristic, but both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire supported less divisive goals, such as education and hospitality. These organizations offer a balanced selection of mainstream organized patriotic movements before 1914. While it is true that there were unsavoury patriotic leagues in Edwardian Britain, such as the British Brothers League, these groups were marginalized in British society because of their radicalism and overt racism.18 There also were more highly politically partisan groups such as the Primrose League, which operated as an extra-parliamentary wing of the Conservative Party.19 The groups in this study were more representative of the politically and socially acceptable currents of pre-war patriotism and imperialism. Although the pre-war activities and campaigns of the three patriotic and imperialistic leagues discussed in this study have been examined, their wartime and interwar achievements and failures are much less generally known. In addition, few studies have bothered to compare masculinist versions of imperialism and patriotism directly to feminized versions. Gendered comparisons are central for explaining wartime and post-war successes and failures. The National Service League was founded in 1902 by Lord Newton and Sir Clinton Dawkins to promote compulsory military service. It remained pitifully small until Field Marshal Earl Roberts became its president in December 1905. The league attracted many high profile members, including Rudyard Kipling, Lords Curzon and Milner and Admiral Charles Beresford. Under Lord Roberts’s tenure, the league grew from under 2,000 to 100,000 members (or 270,000 “adherents,” a looser category of membership) by 1914. Under Lord Roberts, the league promoted short-term compulsory military training not continental-style conscription, although this distinction was not always clear to its opponents. The league’s main arguments favouring compulsory military training were that it would secure Britain against invasion and free the Navy from having to concentrate its forces in Britain’s home waters. The league also made a number of social arguments linking compulsory military training to the improved health, strength, and prosperity of the nation. For the most part, existing studies of the National Service League have restricted themselves to the pre-war period.20 Historians examining the wartime conscription debate have focused on party politics, political ideology, and military

8

Introduction

questions of manpower.21 Few studies have provided sufficient material on the league’s wartime activities.22 The Victoria League was founded in 1901 to commemorate the death of Queen Victoria. The Victoria League’s raison d’être was to “establish a society for knitting more closely together British subjects dwelling in different parts of the Empire.” The Victoria League was a non-party organization and its original executive committee was filled with the wives and sisters of cabinet ministers and leaders of the Opposition. Its first president was a Conservative (Lady Jersey), its first vice-president a Liberal (Lady Tweedmouth), and its first Hon. Secretary, a Liberal Unionist (Mrs Alfred Lytellton). The Victoria League prided itself on the practicality of its imperialism. While other imperial organizations, such as the Royal Colonial Institute, promoted theory and research on the Empire, the Victoria League tried to make imperialism a factor in the daily life of Britons. Its version of imperialism was heavily slanted towards British women. Its two main fields of activity, imperial education and hospitality, were consciously designed with women in mind, and women formed the bulk of its membership. Imperial education took several forms, including lectures and the circulation of books and newspapers. The other major initiative was the provision of imperial hospitality towards both Britons emigrating to the outreaches of the Empire and to imperial visitors to England. Historiography on the post-1914 Victoria League is relatively light.23 James Greenlee has demonstrated the Victoria League’s involvement with the Imperial Studies movement, a campaign by numerous imperialist organizations to incorporate the Empire more firmly into schools’ academic curricula.24 The full evolution of the League from war to peace and its activities and interests beyond Imperial Studies are much less well known. The League of the Empire was founded in 1901 by Mrs Ord Marshall, who remained as its Honorary Secretary until her death in 1931. The league’s purpose was to promote imperial education. It attracted several notable academic figures, including the legal scholar, Sir Frederick Pollock, who served as president of the league from 1909 until 1937, and the historian A.F. Pollard. One major component of its work was to encourage co-operation throughout the Empire in educational matters. Its dream was to create a federal structure in imperial education that would give free mobility to teachers throughout the

Introduction

9

Empire and lead to mutual recognition of teachers’ qualifications by all imperial educational authorities. The league arranged several conferences in 1907 and 1912 to discuss the arrangements needed to create an interchange scheme for teachers between Great Britain and the Dominions. It was also involved in the Imperial Studies movement. Its own specific contribution to this movement was a scheme to develop a series of textbooks on imperial history.25 The league’s involvement with Imperial Studies has been studied by Greenlee, but its wartime and interwar activities have been less satisfactorily covered.26 This book analyzes the personnel, activities, and publications of the National Service League, the Victoria League, and the League of the Empire during the First World War and the 1920s. It pays special attention to the groups’ efforts to adjust to changes in British society, including a more prominent place for the labour movement, the political enfranchisement of women, the rise of the Labour Party as an alternative party of government, and growing public distaste for militarism. The central argument presented is that the patriotic and imperialist leagues that remained most open to wartime changes due to either conscious wartime choices or their pre-existing traditions and attitudes were best able to survive into the interwar period. The dominant strand of successful pre-war patriotic and imperialist movements was often militaristic, acquisitive, and relatively hostile to the concerns of the labour movement. In contrast, the Victoria League and the League of the Empire made major efforts to achieve greater political inclusivity. Common to all surviving interwar leagues was a focus on less divisive concerns such as education, hospitality, and social activities. In many ways, the language of the more successful interwar patriotic and imperialist leagues became domesticated. Metaphors of family, home, and kinship became increasingly prominent. This change is most evident in interwar programs of the Victoria League and the League of the Empire, such as teacher exchange and imperial hospitality. Overall, a greater awareness of the importance of women as citizens and supporters of Empire is much more evident in the interwar period than in the masculinized pre-war world of patriotic and imperialist organizations. These patterns were central to the associational culture of postwar Britain and were well established by the surviving patriotic and imperialist leagues in this study.

10

Introduction

In sum, this book establishes the continuity of patriotic and imperialist organizations that were open to the changes wrought by the First World War. It shows that although reduced from their Edwardian heyday, such organizations maintained a notable presence in wartime and interwar British society. It argues that the leagues’ sensitivity to emerging trends in wartime Britain, including hostility to militarism and the desire for a more domesticated version of imperialism, were important to their success. It shows that the successful organizations reacted to the growing power of the Labour Party and labour movement in a generally conciliatory manner. It reveals that British women played an important role in ensuring the success of organized patriotism and imperialism in interwar Britain. By careful study of three separate patriotic and imperialist groups from 1914 to 1932, this book brings attention to a neglected but crucial part of British culture and society during this time.

1 The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League: The National Service League during the First World War The National Service League is a perfect example of an organization with narrow goals that could not survive their realization. Many groups in British history have had narrowly defined legislative objectives that succeeded. A persistent problem of such groups has been determining what to do after achieving a specific goal, whether that goal was the abolition of the Corn Laws or the granting of female suffrage. When groups have concerns reaching beyond a single piece of legislation, their continued existence is more likely.1 The National Service League’s goal of compulsory military service became a reality in May 1916 for most of the adult male population. The National Service Acts were not exactly what the league had argued for before the war but they proved to be central to the organization’s demise. The league failed to realise that such a wartime gain was bound to be transitory. If the league truly desired to make compulsory military training permanent, other initiatives would have to be tackled to keep the organization viable until peace returned. The league had long predicted an apocalyptic conflict and had continually argued for compulsory military service. When war finally arrived in August 1914, it exceeded even the most intemperate speeches of Lord Roberts.2 At first, the success of voluntarism in raising Kitchener’s New Armies belied Conscriptionist rhetoric on the necessity for compulsion. Nevertheless, by 1916 Asquith’s government succumbed to pressures for national service. Wartime conscription was the result of a variety of political and military factors and not of the efforts of any single group. The National Service League itself had a minimal impact on the passage of conscription legislation. Once conscription was achieved, the National Service League fell apart.

12

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the last days of lord roberts and implications for the national service league Lord Roberts (1832–1914) was the heart and soul of the Conscription movement from 1905 until his death in November 1914. Before Roberts’s involvement, the movement’s progress was glacial.3 After he assumed the presidency, his prestige added considerably to the National Service League’s growth in popular support. His dynamism and the energy he devoted to the movement were crucial in expanding it into a major pressure group. The entire program of the National Service League struck a chord with Roberts and he became its most ardent advocate and its best known public face. His speeches on behalf of compulsory military service were collected and published.4 His tours throughout the provinces in 1912 and 1913 drew considerable public interest and his speech at Manchester in 1912 became notorious for its frank assessment of the German threat.5 Once the war began in August 1914, the sagacity of his past warnings, though not his pre-war cause, was acknowledged. His attempts to find a useful role in the conflict, his death while visiting Indian troops, and his lavish public funeral form poignant codas to his eventful life.6 Examined in more detail, his final days suggest a last burst of Edwardian patriotic enthusiasm that seemed less suitable as the war ground on. Just as the optimistic Georgian war poetry of Brooke gave way to the grimmer and less exuberant verse of Sassoon and Owen, the rhetoric and activities of Edwardian patriotic leagues made a similar adjustment.7 The war’s outbreak gave Roberts an opportunity to re-assess the impact of the National Service League. In a document written the day after Britain declared war on Germany, Roberts emphasized Britain’s inadequate preparation for the war, which he wished to use as a rallying cry for peacetime conscription.8 In private, his secretary noted his exhilaration upon discovering that the war he had long forecast was a reality.9 Nevertheless, it was not Roberts’s style to hold up his past warnings for public scrutiny, as the press noted at the time of his death.10 In accordance with its leader’s reticence, the National Service League adopted a low profile during Roberts’s brief wartime tenureship. On 6 August 1914 the league’s General Council decided it might eventually have a future role in pushing for wartime conscription but did not wish to embarrass the Government in the midst

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

13

of a great crisis. Therefore, it decided to suspend the league’s propaganda, including its journal The Nation in Arms. In fact, Lord Roberts placed the whole organization of the league at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War. In total, staff increased to over one hundred as businessmen and others volunteered to assist the league.11 Lord Kitchener wrote to Roberts personally asking him to use the National Service League to encourage ex-non commissioned officers to enlist to help with “drilling and training the newly raised units.”12 Roberts also directed the National Service League into philanthropic and civic welfare work. On 5 September 1914 he issued an appeal for field glasses for the troops and hunting saddles for the cavalry. Other league efforts included assisting with recruitment and cooperating with the Cavendish Club and Association to operate an information bureau for social service volunteers. Finally, a Voluntary Recruiting League was formed at a meeting in the league’s Birmingham Office.13 Roberts and the National Service League also attempted to rouse the wider public to service during the war. Roberts’s message took several forms, including lengthy pamphlets, public speeches, and brief messages to children. His pamphlet, The Supreme Duty of the Citizen at the Present Crisis, originally appeared as an article in the November 1914 edition of the Hibbert Journal. In this piece, Britain’s duty to fight in the war revolved around the violation of Belgian neutrality and the argument that defeat would mean the downfall of the British Empire. Although the pamphlet’s ostensible purpose was to bolster voluntary enlistment, Roberts also left the door open for the future use of conscription. He implored the public not to “pay any attention to the foolish prattle of those who talk of this war as the ‘doom of conscription’.” Conscription was used by Britain’s allies, Russia and France, as well as by Germany. Overall, Roberts conceded that, for the moment, the nation’s salvation lay in further voluntary recruitment and in unity behind the Government.14 At the other extreme, his small catechism, Lord Roberts’s Message to the Children of Britain, presented the whole conflict with child-like simplicity. First published as a short pamphlet by the League of the Empire in September 1914, it later appeared in that organization’s Federal Magazine, and copies were sold as postcards. Treaty obligations and the rights of small nations were the dominant themes of this message.15 This short and simple pamphlet circulated throughout the Empire.

14

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

In the war’s opening months, the National Service League also published a short pamphlet entitled The Causes of the Great War. In this pamphlet, Britain’s national interests as well as treaty obligations were listed as crucial. A German victory would lead to occupation of the Low Countries and challenge British naval supremacy, which in turn would lead to the collapse of the British Empire. The British people were to offer united support for the Government and party rivalries had to cease. At least another half million recruits were required immediately, so all young men were encouraged to enlist. Women were given two roles: to prepare to nurse the sick and wounded; and to “bring their influence to bear on our young men and make them do their duty.”16 Roberts’s pamphlets as well as his patriotic speeches and letters show how his vision for the future of organized patriotism was constrained by his antiquated views. Roberts reveals ossified opinions on subjects such as autonomy within the Empire and the place of British women in society. If he had continued as its post-war leader, such oldfashioned ideas would have proven severe handicaps for the National Service League. Over the course of the war, other patriotic groups were able to evolve in their thinking. Roberts, unsurprisingly for his age (he was over eighty), showed no more sign than many other people of adjusting to the coming changes of the war. Roberts lacked imagination in considering any new role for women. In his speech to the boys of Eton on 10 August 1914, Roberts envisioned useful supportive work by most noncombatants, including Eton’s boys (who could attend shooting and drilling classes) and the rich and the old (who could make financial contributions to help those affected by the war). However, the breadth of Roberts’s vision seemed to halt at women. In his words, “There must be no hanging back in this country – men must work and women must weep.”17 In 1910 he had alienated the energetic Lady Edward Cecil (later to be the wife of Lord Milner) who objected to the local organization of the league as well as to her treatment by the all-male executive when she tried to raise the issue publicly.18 Roberts’s inability to contemplate a more active role for women in the war augured poorly for the changes in traditional gender roles that the war was to bring.19 His words on the imperial contribution were similarly problematic. In speeches to troops of the self-governing Dominions, he spoke vaguely of imperial co-operation.20 When speaking of India, Roberts kept firmly hierarchical views. He believed strongly in the fighting

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

15

prowess of the so-called “martial races” of India (especially the Sikhs and Gurkhas) but did not think Indians were fit to lead.21 In a speech on 17 October 1914, Roberts argued that Indians could be “the equals of our own men in courage, constancy and endurance” but had to be “properly led” by British officers in Indian regiments.22 Even mildly progressive ideas, such as the partial Indianization of the officer corps, played no role in Roberts’s vision.23 He praised the fact that Indian troops were joining the British on the battle lines in France. He expressed his hope that the war might rouse a more direct response from the British public and a greater awareness of the Empire. To this end, he helped organize an Indian Soldier’s Fund to provide creature comforts and to nurse the wounded.24 However, he refused to consider Indian participation in the war as a step towards greater autonomy within the British Empire. Besides India, the most important part of the Empire for Roberts was Ireland. Like many other famous members of the British Army, especially many prominent Anglo-Indian officers in the late Victorian period, Roberts was an Irishman.25 Born in India in 1832, Roberts was a son of the Anglo-Irish Protestant ascendancy. His childhood was spent in Ireland and England, though many of his later martial exploits were in India, where he eventually became commander-in-chief. In 1895, after winning fame in India, he returned to Ireland to serve as commanderin-chief until he took over the faltering British campaign in the Boer War. Although he had spent only a fraction of his long life there, he remained deeply attached to Ireland. Before the war Roberts was heavily involved in opposition to Home Rule. He had been one of the leading army champions of the mutineers at Curragh. He persuaded General Sir George Robertson to accept the post of commander of the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force, and he accepted the presidency of a diffuse organization of British supporters of the Ulster Covenant. With such a background, it is unsurprising that Roberts had strong views on the importance of the British Empire. As R.J.Q. Adams has written, “British imperialism – carried out with responsibility and under the precepts of the Christian tradition – was for him an absolute good, a force for transferring civilisation to those who were without it. The conservation and protection of that Empire became his life’s work. His faith in the rightness of this cause never flagged.”26 Once the war began, Home Rule quickly fell away from Roberts’s chief concerns. He objected to the Liberal Government’s enactment

16

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

of Home Rule in September 1914, even though it was simultaneously suspended for the remainder of the war.27 Roberts claimed to be open-minded about whatever constitutional arrangement Ireland chose, even considering “some [wide and generous] scheme of Imperial Federation.” Nevertheless, for Roberts, Home Rule was no mere constitutional issue. Ireland was vulnerable to invasion and was crucial to the defence of the United Kingdom and to the preservation of the Empire. He also had great hopes that Ireland would rally to Britain’s side during the war and that this would lead to a post-war settlement of the Irish question unmarred by “political controversy.”28 Roberts also believed that Irish enlistment was too low because of Irish ignorance over the true causes of the war. To correct this problem, Roberts suggested the formation of a government-organized Rural League that could spread propaganda throughout the countryside to counter the large amount of anti-war Sinn Fein literature in circulation.29 Despite his good intentions, this proposal was rejected. In October 1914 he expressed his concern that Irishmen were still not responding to the patriotic call.30 In a letter to Captain White, the son of an old soldier friend, he wrote that the poor recruiting response of Ireland reflected poorly on its “honour and reputation” in the Empire and other nations.31 However, he felt that he could do little about the problem. After a conversation with several Nationalist and Unionist figures, such as Sir Horace Plunkett, John Redmond (the Irish Nationalist leader), and Sir Hucheson Poe, he felt that political differences made his own participation in the forming of an Irish Brigade or Division “hopeless.”32 Roberts’s vision of imperialism and patriotism left him confused and uncertain over the Irish response to the war. For the most part, his reaction was defensive and his ideas on how to respond to Irish disinterest in the war were unoriginal. The sole initiative he undertook was a series of letters to John Redmond as a fellow “Waterford man.”33 After Roberts’s death, Redmond made a moving tribute to Roberts in the Commons.34 In the last few months of his life, Roberts continued to maintain his uncomplicated view of the world. His sense of morality was tied strongly to his Christian idealism and his belief in the righteousness of the British cause. The war validated his previous analysis of Germany’s antagonism. The improvisation of Kitchener’s New Armies showed the inadequacy of existing schemes of recruitment for a major war. His views on the Empire and on women remained equally static.

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

17

Roberts’s rhetoric had shown some mild sophistication when he was president and chief propagandist of the National Service League before 1914. His pre-war speeches had linked compulsory military service to a host of social arguments, including the need to modernize the classical curriculum, assist the economy, and improve the health of the nation.35 Once the war began and his single patriotic issue – conscription – seemed temporarily unachievable, Roberts reverted to his Victorian mindset. The temporary impossibility of achieving his pet goal seemed to sap his creative energies. His views on imperial racial hierarchies, on Ireland’s position in the Empire, and on women’s role in the war were holdovers from an earlier era. When Roberts made these remarks, he was over eighty years old and at the end of a long and distinguished life. He cannot be criticized heavily for failing to become a convert to progressive ideas. The true problem was not that he could not grasp new ideas but that he was still leading one of the largest pre-war patriotic movements. This showed how out of touch with popular opinion the National Service League was becoming after war was declared. It did not bode well for the league’s future. Roberts’s actual participation in the war was extremely limited. Soon after the war began, Roberts’s old protégé, Lord Kitchener, was appointed secretary of state for war. Roberts hoped for an appointment as commander-in-chief of home forces, but instead became their colonel-in-chief. In this capacity, he made several visits to the imperial troops serving in the United Kingdom. Besides speeches and correspondence, his only other outlet was philanthropic and civic welfare work. As the autumn wore on, Roberts felt that the most important task he could accomplish would be to visit the Indian soldiers in the inhospitable climate of Northern Flanders. In November 1914, during a visit to an Indian contingent at St Omer, France, Roberts caught cold and died. Roberts’s death marked the beginning of the end of a distinct era. His Victorian militaristic imperial and patriotic mindset would become increasingly untenable as the war in the trenches ground on. The press compared the pageantry at Roberts’s funeral to the passing of Nelson and Wellington. The martial traditions and large public spectacles associated with Roberts’s funeral would be repeated with the memorial service for Lord Kitchener and the funeral of Earl Haig.36 However, aspects of Roberts’s role as advocate for compulsory

18

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

military training would reveal what would no longer work in peacetime. Patriotic organizations of the post-war period would have to be less strident and militaristic. Immediately after his death, the popular press built upon the already existing cult of personality for Roberts. His endearing qualities, which had been frequently overlooked or ignored during his campaign for compulsory military service, were suddenly recalled.37 Lord Roberts’s reputation as a Christian hero – brave, unselfish and honourable – was a frequent theme. The Observer noted his contributions to Christianizing the army, particularly through temperance work. Roberts was not only a great man but full of piety and chivalry. In short, he was “a parfit gentil knight.”38 The Times recognized Roberts as the “almost perfect type of Christian hero.”39 Lord Curzon (1859–1925), Roberts’s former colleague in the National Service League, added to this image in the tribute he gave in the House of Lords on 17 November 1914. Curzon noted Roberts’s lifelong ritual of family prayers, which revealed him to be “a humble-minded and devout Christian man.”40 A day before this tribute from Curzon, clergymen throughout London, including the canon at St Paul’s Cathedral, pointed to Roberts as a Christian example to their congregations.41 Roberts’s martial qualities were cited as often as his Christian ones. His obituaries frequently compared him to past military heroes, especially the Duke of Wellington. In his tribute to Roberts, Curzon argued that the welfare of the country came first with both Wellington and Roberts. However, for Wellington, the key issue was “how the Government of the King could be carried ... [on and to] Lord Roberts it was how the security of this kingdom and the integrity of the Empire could be maintained secure.”42 The Evening News and Evening Mail noted that while the Iron Duke was obeyed and feared, Lord Roberts was loved.43 This combination of martial and domesticated qualities made Roberts a unique representative of early twentiethcentury British masculinity. Martin Francis has noted that in their imaginations British men of this time period “travelled back and forth across the frontier of domesticity ... attracted by the responsibilities of marriage or fatherhood, but also enchanted by fantasies of the energetic life and homosocial camaraderie of the adventure hero.”44 In public remembrances of Roberts as soldier and Christian family man, he seemed the perfect domesticated hero.

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

19

It was Roberts’s role as a popular prophet that spoke of a much more virulent form of masculinity. Before 1914 his warnings over the German threat and his proffered solution, compulsory military service, were not widely accepted. This meant that the ultimate influence of the National Service League was negligible despite its considerable membership.45 Some re-evaluation of Roberts occurred after his death in 1914, but not enough to sway the balance. Militant patriotic messages of the National Service League variety were still unacceptable even in the opening stages of the First World War. One of the most notable tributes to Lord Roberts was found in F.S. Oliver’s book Ordeal by Battle. Oliver (1864–1934) was an important figure for the National Service League. His Scottish family had a long Radical pedigree yet he embraced Conservatism. After receiving a traditional Cambridge education he entered the business world and by 1904 had become a Director of Debenham and Freebody which went on to become one of the largest merchant companies in the world. Oliver had a flair for writing and in many ways Ordeal by Battle is his masterpiece. It is certainly the most important work related to the National Service League in the early part of the war. The book was originally planned before 1914 as a comprehensive treatise on national service. The war altered many previous suppositions and Oliver substantially re-wrote the book and published it in June 1915. The book’s argument is examined in greater detail in the next section but it is important to note its role in cultivating Lord Roberts’s image.46 Besides being a spirited polemic in favour of national service, Oliver’s book also served as a tribute to Roberts. Oliver characterizes Roberts as an honest and plain-dealing soldier and contrasts his simple words with the rhetorical excesses of his opponents. In a famous passage, Oliver wrote that Roberts’s “highest intellectual quality ... was his instinct” while his “highest moral quality ... was the unshakeable confidence with which he trusted his instinct.” Roberts was no debater, although he could state his conclusions with “admirable lucidity” but such bluntness and lack of sophistication only added to the Roberts cult. After all, for Oliver, “Ingenuity and eloquence are a curse at councils of war, and state, and business.”47 Roberts seemed to be every part the bluff, non-intellectual, masculine type favoured by traditionalists in the Edwardian military.48 The Roberts cult even reached into children’s literature. Building on the tradition of boys’ adventure stories, Roberts’s life was docu-

20

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

mented in suitably heroic terms. However, in such stories, the more controversial elements, such as his national service campaign, were downplayed. An appeal for the writing of a simple biography for children with educational value was placed in The Evening News and Evening Mail almost immediately after his death.49 The hope was that such a story would be read to children in British elementary schools on the day of Lord Roberts’s funeral. The newspaper hoped to repeat its success of a previous work on Captain Scott of the Antarctic which had been read to four million British schoolchildren. Educational authorities who had co-operated with the Scott piece again agreed to help with the tribute to Lord Roberts. The paper claimed that as early as November 18 some 7,500 applications to help with the public readings had arrived. Some 100,000 copies of the pamphlet on Lord Roberts were printed. Roberts was to be immortalized in stone as well as words. Prime Minister Asquith moved a resolution that the Commons consider a national monument be erected at the public charge to Roberts’s memory.50 Accordingly, a bust of Lord Roberts would be placed in St Paul’s, a simple cross marked “Roberts” in the crypt near Nelson’s burial place, and later a statue of Roberts on horseback in the Horse Guards was erected. Some intriguing suggestions to memorialize Roberts involved linking his name and memory to the emerging volunteer armies. On 17 November 1914 The Pall Mall Gazette asked that, if the first million men raised for the war were now known as “Kitchener’s Army,” then the second million could be named “Roberts’s Million.”51 The irony of linking the name of one of Britain’s leading crusaders against voluntary enlistment to the largest voluntary army ever raised in Britain was not remarked upon. Although these suggestions never came to pass, some more practical and philanthropic suggestions did. An organization of workshops bearing Lord Roberts’s name and set up to find skills for and to employ ex-servicemen still exists today.52 The initiative to collect field glasses from private citizens for the Army continued and was re-named the Lord Roberts Field Glass Fund. The problem was that such philanthropic and civic welfare initiatives commemorating Lord Roberts fit poorly with the ethos of the league. The masculinist ethos of the National Service League did not adapt to the generally feminized world of philanthropy. The ceremonial surrounding the funeral of Lord Roberts marks the end of an important stage in the history of organized Edwardian

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

21

patriotic movements. His funeral arrangements echoed those of Nelson and Wellington’s to a considerable extent, and this similarity did not go unnoticed in the popular press.53 It was a major spectacle that drew enormous crowds as well as the participation of dozens of patriotic groups. The planning and mechanics of the actual funeral were considerable feats of organization and were given extensive coverage in the press. Originally the family of Lord Roberts had desired that his funeral take place at a small church near his home in Ascot, but these limited arrangements soon became impractical. It was decided that the family could have some private time with the body at Ascot. Following this, Roberts’s body would be taken to the railway station at Englemere on a gun carriage. From Englemere the body was to be taken by special train to Waterloo station and then escorted by the military to St Paul’s Cathedral.54 Most accounts of Roberts’s funeral stress the sheer size of the crowds. The Pall Mall Gazette noted a queue stretching from St Paul’s Cathedral and Cheapside along the entire length of Newgate Street, with some people waiting up to three hours in the rain. The writer also noted the cross-class appeal of the event and the nature of the crowd: “It was essentially a popular crowd, composed largely of young women and men of the middle and working classes. Here and there a soldier in khaki, a nurse in uniform, or a little child was a conspicuous figure.”55 This diversity of support for the departed Field Marshal was the kind of impact that patriotic leagues had always aimed at but were seldom ever able to achieve. The universal appeal of Roberts was also evidenced by the lavish coverage his death and funeral were given in other patriotic leagues whose objects were far removed from those of the National Service League. The Primrose League Gazette put an image of Lord Roberts on its cover with quotes from his past speeches.56 As has been previously mentioned, the League of the Empire issued copies of Roberts’s Message to the Children. The final days of Lord Roberts fit most comfortably with the prewar and early war activities of Edwardian patriotic leagues. Roberts’s image as a “Happy Warrior,” at home with the trumpets of militarism, sat well with early public enthusiasm for the war. However, his tentative pre-war efforts to appear flexible on contentious issues such as social reform and imperial relations fell by the wayside as the war progressed. The fact that Roberts died early in the war provided the National Service League with a convenient martyr. His prophecies on

22

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the coming war could be repeated, and he could be eulogized as a prophet spurned. However, as the war progressed, militant patriotic leagues focused on a single goal, along the lines of the National Service League’s campaign for conscription, became more and more unfeasible. Within three years of Roberts’s death, the league was an empty shell and a spent force. Other patriotic organizations that had different agendas and took different approaches were better situated to thrive in the post-war world.

the national service league in the early part of the war, 1914–1915 After the death of Lord Roberts, the National Service League went into a period of political hibernation and engaged in innocuous philanthropic and civic welfare activities. This inactivity was not to last. In 1915 it became evident that the “laissez-faire” approach to running the war adopted by the Liberal government was not working. The Battle of 2nd Ypres and the Gallipoli campaign showed that a breakthrough was not to be achieved easily. More importantly for the Conscriptionists, such setbacks also revealed Britain’s enormous supply and manpower problems. The “Shells Scandal of 1915” (“the revelation in the newspaper press of the shortage of armaments of the British Army on the Western Front”) led to the creation of the war’s first Coalition Government under Asquith and of the Ministry of Munitions under the dynamic leadership of David Lloyd George.57 A slowing of the river of voluntary recruits gave the National Service League the impetus to resume its propaganda. Yet, while providing a practical reason for the adoption of conscription, the war also robbed the league of other issues that might have allowed it to survive into the post-war period. Re-starting the conscription campaign was problematic. Despite growing public unease with the manpower situation, resumption of the league’s call for compulsory military service was handicapped by a variety of factors including diminished credibility, organizational difficulties, and rival voices. The internal debate within the league over the best response to the clamour for conscription contrasts strongly with the confident pageantry and myth-making surrounding the final days and death of Lord Roberts. The public could separate, or at least downplay, the controversial elements of the pre-war con-

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

23

scription debate from the heroic person of Lord Roberts. Such surgical distinctions were untenable with the wartime league, and its public self-confidence suffered accordingly. After Roberts’s death, the key figures in the National Service League were Lords Milner (1854–1925) and Curzon. These men shared similar characteristics and experiences. Both had impressive reputations as administrators. Both had ruled in outposts of Empire and both had returned with their reputations tarnished. Both also had an authoritarian streak that made them ill at ease with the increasingly popular nature of British politics and a world in which women were playing an ever more active public role. Milner’s open disdain for party politics is evident in the title of one of his better-known biographies, Proconsul in Politics.58 Curzon’s lack of the common touch is revealed in the title of a study of his life before becoming Viceroy of India in 1898, Superior Person.59 In addition, their personalities and personal histories (especially for the late marrying Milner) seemed to represent a discomfort with domesticity and all things feminine that John Tosh sees as a hallmark of many late Victorian empire builders.60 Milner played the key role in the National Service League’s battles in 1915. His salvos on behalf of the League were part of his efforts to find a place for himself in the fluid political situation and evidence of his impatience with democratic methods. His ideological disagreements and personal antipathy became focused in his attacks upon Asquith, especially after his exclusion from the Coalition Government of May 1915.61 On 24 May 1915 Milner wrote an extremely critical letter to The Times in which he protested the Coalition’s refusal to consider “a change of method,” specifically, the enrollment of “the whole of our able-bodied manhood” into the war effort.62 Forces gathering around Milner, including his disciple Leo Amery (1873–1955), encouraged his criticisms of the Coalition Government. His appeals for conscription through the National Service League would gain momentum throughout the summer of 1915. The early deliberations of the National Service League lacked a sense of urgency. In April 1915 the league’s Representative Council met for the first time since Roberts’s death. After paying homage to Lord Roberts, an effort was made to rebuild the league’s momentum. A resolution was passed that a meeting be held in June 1915 with a major speaker such as Lord Milner or Curzon, to show that the league

24

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

and its cause was not at an end.63 At this point, Milner was also opposed to many forms of public activity for the league and wished to avoid open participation in the democratic process. He believed that the biggest danger for conscription’s advocates lay in the party machines, which could be turned against agitators. He felt that what conscription truly needed was a strong man in government to put through the policy despite any opposition. He strongly deprecated any attempt by the league to go cap-in-hand to the Government to request compulsory national service, and felt that such a move might only provoke further opposition. The chairman agreed, adding that agitation would be harmful and that the role of the league was to support the Government rather than weaken it through criticism or interference.64 If the league was not ready to agitate for conscription in April 1915, what was it ready to do? Resolutions that the league actively help recruitment by inducing shop-owners to take on female staff and to recruit workmen were defeated (again revealing a strong masculinist bias operating in the league).65 Eventually, it was agreed that members could help the recruiting department but only as individuals independent of the league.66 As it turned out, some branches did respond to the call and later many branch chairmen and secretaries sat on the committees responsible for enacting the Derby Scheme from October to December 1915.67 This initiative followed the government’s creation in August 1915 of a National Register, which required all British citizens from age sixteen to sixty-five to give information on their age, sex, and occupation. From the register, the Derby Recruiting Scheme contacted all eligible men not “engaged in essential [war] work” and asked them of their willingness “to accept military service when called upon to do so.”68 Members of the National Service League did their best to help with this work. In his history of the Voluntary Recruiting movement, John Osborne notes that league members became “[s]ome of the most diligent workers for recruiting.” This was equally true for members of the Navy League and the Primrose League.69 In some ways, this involvement was deeply ironic. The only way that conscription could occur was if voluntary enlistment failed. Yet, many National Service League members did their best to help voluntarism succeed. Although many members of the National Service League seemed to support voluntarism with their actions, other members continued the

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

25

battle of ideas. One early contribution was by G.G. Coulton (1858–1947), a medieval historian and Conscriptionist. Coulton had written historical treatises on conscription in Britain before 1914 and had debated all opponents. As a Liberal, Coulton had a more complex set of arguments in favour of compulsory military service than the other mostly Conservative advocates of the cause.70 Shortly after the outbreak of the war, Coulton published Workers and War, which repeated his pre-war emphasis on the support given by continental socialists and liberals for compulsory military training as the most efficient and democratic system of recruitment. He also stressed the great insularity of the British working classes. He believed that hard truths about the causes and effects of war, German belligerence, and continental attitudes towards conscription were being concealed from the British working class by their leaders.71 To help amend this situation, Coulton re-issued a translation of the pro-conscription work by French Socialist Jean Jaures, Democracy and Military Service. Some former supporters of the National Service League branched into other directions. Lord Meath and his organized youth brigades had played an enormous role in Edwardian patriotic movements. During the war, Meath turned his attention away from conscription per se and toward other patriotic causes. At the beginning of the war he promoted recruitment, organized philanthropic work, and raved about German spying within Great Britain. Although his youngest son was killed in France in June 1915, Meath’s faith in the rightness of the war never wavered and he saw the imperial war effort as an opportunity to create a greater sense of imperial unity.72 Two of Meath’s wartime causes, Empire Day and imperial education, pointed the way to the future for popular patriotism. Since 1902 Meath had been an energetic promoter of Empire Day, an annual celebration of Empire originally conceived in Hamilton, Ontario, by Clementina Fessenden in 1896.73 Under Lord Meath the overwhelming focus was on the Union Jack. The Empire Day movement took on “something of a chauvinistic flagwaving character,” in which the Union Jack would be flown at all schools throughout Britain and speeches made to schoolchildren on the greatness of the Empire.74 Despite Meath’s efforts, it was not until 1916 that Westminster gave it official recognition.75 Empire Day would be more important for other patriotic organizations. Meath pointed to one path for patriotic league members to follow; the philanthropic and civic welfare efforts of the league were another.

26

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

However, as the summer of 1915 wore on, such half-steps were no longer acceptable to league diehards. Some openly called for a strongman to push through compulsion. Several letters to the Morning Post lamented that Lord Roberts was no longer available for such a post.76 Lord Kitchener himself was beginning to realize that voluntarism alone might not raise the necessary manpower, although he was not prepared to support full-fledged conscription. A lively debate erupted within the literary magazines of the day, though few of the proConscriptionist writers were active members of the National Service League.77 Of the many articles appearing in 1915, only one of note was by a National Service League stalwart. In “the Volunteer Spirit,” G.G. Coulton compared the inefficiencies of the British Army under the voluntary system with the inefficiencies that existed in nineteenth-century British education when it was non-compulsory and run by private or “voluntary” organizations. Though interesting, his argument was problematic because of its unclear terminology. In British educational parlance, the term “voluntary” could refer to either school attendance or the non-governmental bodies running schools. This distinction was not always made clear by Coulton and this unsuccessful article shows how problematic it was for the National Service League to participate in refined debate.78 The debate in the journals was accompanied by a flood of pamphlets. These pamphlets were closer to the mindset of the National Service League and were usually less elegantly written than the literary journals. Three notable works were Henry Skrine’s Wanted!: A Citizen Army and Navy (1914), Annette Meakin’s Enlistment or Conscription? (1915), and the Rev. J.E. Roscoe’s Conscription in the Bible (1915). Roscoe’s short contribution verged on the ridiculous, its biblical evidence resting on a single injunction from the Book of Numbers. Far more central to its message were its harsh condemnations of socialists and its frequent paeans to “common sense.”79 Skrine’s work was more sophisticated. Written in the early stage of the war, it demonized the German threat. British culture, social organization, liberties, and ethical conceptions were all threatened by German savagery. Accordingly, Skrine demanded compulsory registration by County and Borough Councils for all men between twenty and forty to allow military authorities to select recruits by ballot. The most interesting part of Skrine’s pamphlet is his firm pronouncement on the social virtues of conscription. He spent far more time speaking of Britain’s internal disorder on the eve of the war

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

27

than of the long-term origins of the German threat. Such emphasis on internal questions is far different from National Service League pamphlets such as The Causes of the Great War or The Supreme Duty of the Citizen. This emphasis can also be read in strongly gendered terms. Conscription was to re-awaken a sense of ordered masculinity through which boys might learn “Self-abnegation, habits of order, obedience and co-operation for a common end.” He strongly criticized the British urge towards values that could be read as feminized: “exclusiveness, snobbery, social climbing, pride of birth and wealth.”80 Annette Meakin’s work was more typical of the early genre. Its chief concern was countering various anti-conscription arguments including the supposedly un-English nature of compulsion, its effect on British freedoms and the possible creation of a military caste in Britain. Conscription was essential both as a means of inducing “shirkers” to serve and to assist “honest waverers” awaiting their government to take the lead. From the view of the National Service League, it is interesting that Meakin rarely mentioned the league directly. When the league makes an infrequent appearance in her text, it is criticized for promoting conscription for home defence only before the war.81 The most sophisticated work to appear during this period was the already mentioned F.S. Oliver’s Ordeal by Battle, which was published in June 1915. The book sold well and a cheap edition was published for a sale price of only one shilling. Unsurprisingly once the second conscription act was passed in May 1916, sales ebbed considerably.82 One entire section analyzed the “Causes of the war” with a strong emphasis on the diplomatic and political miscalculations of both Germany and England. Germany was noted for its Bismarckian diplomacy and the unity and thoroughness of the German military, social, and political system. In contrast, Britain was both disunited and unprepared for war due to the democratic form of government. The fourth section of Ordeal by Battle was Oliver’s tour de force. He argued that the Government’s reliance on voluntary appeals was a foolhardy misreading of public opinion at the beginning of the war. He claimed that Britons at the time were ready for significant self-sacrifice.83 Voluntarism was unjust as it dispersed the burdens of soldiering unevenly, undignified because of the propaganda and exhortations necessary to sustain it, and impractical because it would not produce the numbers needed for victory.

28

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Oliver’s book was the most wide-ranging pro-Conscription document produced between 1914 and 1915. It was treated seriously enough to merit a harsh, full-scale rebuttal by John Mackinnon Robertson, entitled The Future of Militarism, published in 1916 (some eighteen months after Oliver’s volume first appeared). Oliver himself was pleased by this attack hoping that any notoriety stirred up by the rebuttal would increase his own sales.84 Robertson showed Oliver to be illogical in his belief that conscription could have prevented the war and vindictive in his criticisms of the National Service League’s pre-war opponents. Robertson argued that the league was dishonest in its past emphasis on conscription for home defence only. He believed it had always wanted conscription to support a secret wartime commitment to the Continent.85 Robertson saw quite rightly that Oliver’s wartime goal was for conscription to be made permanent. Although not directly stated in Ordeal by Battle, private letters by Oliver to his brother confirm such sentiments.86 Worse still, Robertson fully grasped that, despite his words on “democracy” and national service, Oliver remained profoundly anti-democratic. Robertson saw Oliver’s natural supporters hoping conscription could be used to subordinate workers through military discipline at the lowest pay rate possible. Robertson’s criticisms revealed that while the war was beginning to erode British opposition to compulsory military service, the National Service League was still not trusted. In such an atmosphere, the league could make very little mileage from their accurate pre-war predictions. The league’s energies were consumed trying to support the war effort and later arguing for wartime conscription. Not enough effort was made to create positive arguments for compulsory military training in peacetime. Without such arguments, the National Service League’s future looked bleak once the Government made conscription a reality. F.J.C. Hearnshaw and Thomas Coghlan Horsfall were two other National Service League figures who issued notable appeals during the early stage of the war. Hearnshaw, though a noted academic historian, was the less innovative of the two writers. In his 1915 work, The Ancient Defence of England: The Nation in Arms, Hearnshaw resurrected the historical argument for conscription preached by G.G. Coulton and others. Hearnshaw argued that compulsory service had deep historic roots in England dating back to the Anglo-Saxon “fyrd” or

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

29

militia. Such service was a mark of freedom, and this type of national militia was far preferable to large standing armies. The principle of compulsory military service remained the “fundamental principle of English Law.” Although he was not explicit in his piece, he left the door open for the reappearance of conscription in the war.87 His historical argument was much repeated and would be reprinted again in a 1916 collection of essays entitled Freedom and Service.88 One of the most unusual contributions to the wartime conscription literature between 1914 and 1915 came from the pen of Thomas Coghlan Horsfall (1841–1932). Along with Oliver, Horsfall was probably the most original writer in support of the National Service League and conscription. Unlike Oliver, Horsfall attempted to link the idea of conscription to a positive vision of social regeneration. Before 1914 he had linked conscription to social reform in National Service and the Welfare of the Community (1906).89 His thoughts on conscription fit into his general views on the superiority of German town planning.90 In 1915 he issued a re-worked version of this argument entitled The Uplifting of the Nation by Compulsory Military Training.91 As its title suggests, Horsfall was primarily concerned with the social implications of conscription. The majority of the work repeated or echoed many of the arguments made in his 1906 piece. However, Germany in 1915 was not merely the commercial and military rival of Britain it had been in 1906, but a full-fledged military opponent. Horsfall’s work must be unique amongst patriotic First World War pamphlets in quoting Germans sympathetically. A considerable part of Horsfall’s 1915 work praised the German social system and contrasted it with the drunkenness, dirt, and despair of Britain’s industrial and urban areas. He made considerable use of German authorities’ negative opinions on London’s East End, Manchester, and Salford, and mill-workers and colliers from Lancashire, and Yorkshire.92 Britain was also condemned for its shortcomings in skilled trades, its lack of well-maintained and managed playgrounds for youth and of model dwellings near cultural facilities for the working class, and for its problems with elementary schooling. Horsfall’s vision of compulsory service, accompanying a coherent set of social reforms along German lines, echoed his pre-war arguments. Physical training, which would improve the physique and health of all boys, was to be given in elementary and continuation schools and also in the Territorial Force. Intriguingly, Horsfall’s vision was not solely mas-

30

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

culinist: girls would also be subject to all parts of this training short of military service. The inspections made of all incoming recruits would expose the shortcomings of the British system and lead to further social reforms. Horsfall believed that compulsory military training was compatible with democratic government. Germany’s compulsory system was not intrinsically bad in itself but controlled by an undemocratic government. Switzerland was a more apt example, as it showed that conscription when combined with democracy did not lead to militarism.93 Horsfall’s praise for the Swiss combination of democracy with compulsory service was another oft-repeated pre-war theme of the National Service League.94 None of these arguments was particularly new for Horsfall, though it was exceptional for someone to continue emphasizing them in the midst of a major war. What was unusual was both the type of compulsory military training advocated and its international and military impact. Horsfall was quite clear that he did not favour wholesale conscription, rather, the Army would still be dependent on voluntary recruiting for the majority of its men. His main interest was in his proposed system’s impact on the post-war world. He believed that a combination of compulsory service with social reform would greatly strengthen Britain. Improved urban conditions would end foreign slurs that Britain did not deserve her prominent place in the world. The addition of a trained military reserve to Britain’s regular army and navy would make Germany hesitate to make war again. However, if war did reoccur, Horsfall foresaw a smoother mobilization process and considerably less social and economic dislocation than under the existing voluntary system. Unlike his pre-war efforts, Horsfall’s wartime pamphlet was not sponsored by the National Service League. However, Horsfall did remain active in the league and was still a member of the Representative Council at the sixteenth and final general meeting of the league in July 1918.95 He stands out among Conscriptionists for the consistency of his pre-war and wartime social arguments in favour of compulsory military service. Although his grand vision of improving the entire nation through compulsory military training is both sublime and ridiculous, it staked out a position that went beyond the immediate challenges and attempted to come to terms with the changes occurring in British society. The National Service League as a whole was not so creative at this early stage and its initial reluctance to con-

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

31

sider such positive arguments for post-war conscription was a key reason for its wartime demise. When it did try to make some tentative efforts in 1916, it proved maladroit and suffered accordingly. The pressure for conscription was increased by the launching of a campaign outside the confines of the league itself. On 16 August 1915 a manifesto was published in the Morning Post signed by “distinguished men of all parties.” It called for a “complete and organized effort to carry on the war” requiring all men to either fight or be available “for national service at home.” The British people were “only waiting for an opportunity to affirm their willingness to serve.” To channel such feeling, public meetings were to be held throughout the country to influence the Government. Original signatures to the manifesto were primarily secondary league figures such as Henry Birchenough, Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, mp, Sir Henry Craik, mp, Bishop Welldon, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and Robert Yerburgh, mp. Noticeably absent in their endorsements were league stalwarts such as Lords Milner and Curzon. The manifesto did attract an interesting cross-section of figures unconnected to the league, including Neville Chamberlain, Sir H. Rider Haggard, Sir Alfred Mond, mp, Leo Chiozza Money, mp, Josiah Wedgwood, mp, and Lord Northcliffe.96 Subsequent issues of the Morning Post contained additional signatures, including lesser league figures.97 The National Service League’s legitimacy was severely undermined by its decision not to participate actively in the new manifesto campaign. Milner held the Asquith coalition government in disdain for failing to control manpower and the economy. At the annual meeting of the league on 16 June 1915, he laid out his beliefs in typically uncompromising fashion: “This nation has always a fatal proneness to be led astray by clap-trap. The present bother about conscription is a case in point. All law, all order, all discipline, involves ... compulsion. Does any sane man on that account object to law, order, and discipline?”98 When Lord Newton joined the Coalition Government in June 1915 as paymaster-general, he left the door open for more decisive leadership of the league by Lord Milner. On 29 July 1915 Milner became chairman of the General Council of the National Service League. Under his chairmanship, the pressures to end the quietist policy of the league grew almost unbearable. Leo Amery, Milner’s leading acolyte, urged him to take an active part in proclaiming “a complete policy, in which ns [national service] fits as an essential lever, but

32

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

which also deals with all the other problems, munitions, finance, food & so on.” Such a policy would be clearly distinguished from mere party policy.99 Lord Milner illustrated the difficulty of the League’s position in a letter to Lord Curzon written on 15 August 1915. Milner repeated his opposition to the agitation, feeling that such action would only harden the feelings of the league’s government opponents. However, since agitation had been started by Northcliffe, Milner felt it would be to the league’s long-term disadvantage not to participate. Milner was “personally convinced that [inaction] would be the end of the League.” He believed that the drop of members since the beginning of the war would turn into a flood if other organizations became active agents pushing for league principles. He asked Curzon, as a Cabinet member, to keep them up to date on official decisions (thus disregarding cabinet secrecy). Milner felt that once the Government did take the initiative, it would have overwhelming support.100 Milner calculated that most decided Britons were favourably inclined towards conscription and that most of the undecided would follow the Government if it took a firm lead.101 If the Government did not take such a lead, however, national service would either never arrive or it would come only after “a bitter controversy which would divide the nation into nearly equal halves.”102 The agitation for conscription started by the Northcliffe press proved too difficult to resist. Milner continued to express his misgivings about Northcliffe but was forced to work with him due to a lack of personal political support.103 Milner finally broke his silence on 20 August 1915 when the National Service League released a manifesto to the press that was issued later as a publication entitled Occasional Notes. In its original form it said simply that “the National Service League has decided to take an active share in the movement in favour of National Service ... The time has come for the League to resume its propaganda ... In changed circumstances the League has changed its policy. It now advocates not merely National Service for home defence, but universal and compulsory military service for the duration of the war.”104 A fuller version of the manifesto issued in Occasional Notes pointed to changes in the circumstances of the war and in league policy. The war was of “unprecedented intensity” and required placing “forces of unseen magnitude into the field,” but the burden had to be spread

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

33

equitably throughout the population. The solution was the establishment of universal and compulsory military service for the war’s duration. Questions over the “best [military] organization in time of peace may be left to be decided when peace returns.” For the moment, the league’s task was to muster all available manpower for the war effort. In doing so the league had to co-operate with men of all parties.105 The league’s partisanship is evident in a text that accompanied the manifesto. This text did not target shirkers, trade unionists, or the Conscription movement’s other usual demons. The real villain was the “Liberal” government. That the government of the day was actually a Liberal-Conservative coalition (albeit with Liberals in the ascendancy) was ignored. The “Liberal” Government was lambasted for failing to take a lead on important issues including aliens, the Munitions Act, and cotton contraband. Lord Haldane was used as a symbol of Liberal cosmopolitanism, unpreparedness, and implicit pro-German leanings. Stephen Koss has argued that among Conservatives, Haldane became a scapegoat for Liberalism and was a necessary sacrifice for the creation of the Asquith coalition in May 1915.106 Although always claiming to be non-party, the National Service League’s partisan jibes revealed its true colours. An accompanying article in Occasional Notes spelt out national service broadly as putting “every man ... at the disposal of the State, and ... liable to be set to, and kept at, the work for which he is best fitted.” National service was first and foremost, necessary to defeat that “Prussian thoroughness” that aimed at world domination. In terms of morale, national service would both discourage the Germans and encourage Britain’s Allies. In addition, conscription would raise the spirit of British soldiers already in the field as they prepared to “face the trials of another winter in the trenches.”107 Rather unconvincingly, Occasional Notes argued that national service would have a bracing effect on British civilians. Public opinion drove the national Government in its decisions, so the league’s task was “to help in forming public opinion to give that support.”108 The response to the conscription agitation was immediate and mostly negative. King George V was particularly concerned. On 28 August 1915 he dined with Milner and expressed his “strong ... opinion against the agitation for National Service.” This point was repeated to Milner the next day by Lord Stamfordham, the King’s Private Secretary.109 Milner never fully grasped the nuances of public opinion or the democratic process. He was unable to understand that govern-

34

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ment measures could only succeed with public support. The day after his discussions with King George and Stamfordham, Milner outlined his thinking in a memorandum. He reiterated his earlier belief about the need for a Government initiative and the problems with the Northcliffe agitation. He felt negative public opinion was due more to the association with Northcliffe than to the legitimacy of compulsory military service. If national service was supported by the Government and Lord Kitchener, the national press and public opinion would follow. Public prejudices that conscription was “degrading, unBritish and fatal to the maintenance of our essential industries” were being fanned by the Liberal press.110 Milner’s resumption of the conscription campaign aroused strong opposition. The depth of conviction in this opposition marked the beginning of the league’s eventual undoing. By focusing its entire identity as a patriotic organization on a specific military objective, the National Service League made itself an easy target. Patriotic groups organized around looser, less specific or militaristic aims were less divisive. The Labour movement was the league’s strongest foe. It had raised its concerns over compulsory military service early in the war but became increasingly agitated as Milner and the league resumed their active propaganda. The Labour movement had never hidden its feelings about conscription. Before 1914 they had dogged the National Service League’s efforts and had frequently challenged the league to debates.111 The National Service League put considerable effort into its attempts to stem Labour prejudice, adopting social reform arguments and pointing to democratic regimes in Switzerland and the antipodes of the British Empire for proof that working men could be patriotic and conscription democratic. Australia, which adopted compulsory military training for boys in 1911 under a Labour government, held a particular fascination for Lord Roberts and others.112 However, these efforts never amounted to much. Only a few socialists out of the mainstream, such as Robert Blatchford, editor of the Clarion, and H.H. Hyndham of the Social Democratic Federation, embraced the cause. The league never failed to point to the example of continental socialists such as Jean Jaures who saw conscription as the most democratic system of military service available and as a means to prevent the formation of a reactionary military caste. Nevertheless, British socialists well disposed to national service remained firmly in the minority.

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

35

Labour’s suspicions remained after the war began. In September 1914 the Trades Union Congress (tuc) Parliamentary Committee gathered in London to issue a manifesto. Even at this early stage of the war, the parliamentary committee was aware of the dangers of conscription. The committee noted that if the voluntary system failed, “the demand for a national system of compulsory military service will not only be made with redoubled vigour, but may prove to be [so] persistent and strong as to become irresistible.” The committee members placed their full faith in the voluntary system. The very threat of conscription and its potential burden on the country’s financial and industrial resources would encourage more men to volunteer for the army.113 Such optimism was to give way to a fiercer response once it became evident that the voluntary system was failing. Trade unionists reacted strongly against both the nationalist press, which was urging conscription, and the spectre of an army of underpaid conscripted soldiers. In August 1915 the executive council of the National Transport Workers’ Federation adopted a resolution against the Northcliffe campaign, which it described as “an irresponsible and mischievous group of publicists conducted through a totally unreliable section of the Press.” The Executive Council wished to state its disdain and opposition to the “press dictators” and to the “pernicious efforts of the cheapsoldiering Conscriptionists.”114 In a similar vein, the tuc’s annual meeting at Bristol in September 1915 unanimously passed a resolution upholding the voluntary system of enlistment and protesting against the campaign for compulsion which was destroying national unity.115 It is important to note that such strong anti-Conscriptionist feelings were being registered at the same time that the tuc was passing resolutions justifying the war and pledging support to the Government. Trade union officials were both patriotic and class-conscious in a war setting, a combination that the National Service League seemed unable to grasp.116 The National Service League was hard-pressed to oppose the powerful arguments raised against conscription. Two of the league’s strongest critics were J.W. Kneeshaw and Bruce Glasier. Kneeshaw began life as a bricklayer and rose through the Independent Labour Party (ilp) organization between 1907 and 1916. From 1911 to 1919 he served on Birmingham City Council and from 1916 to 1921 he was a member of the Union for Democratic Control. He was an unsuccessful Labour candidate for West Birmingham against Neville Chamberlain in the

36

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

General Election of 1918. Glasier came from a higher-class background than Kneeshaw and served as chairman of the ilp and as editor of the Labour Leader.117 Kneeshaw’s pamphlets, Conscription Enters the Workshops (1917), Conscription or Trade Unionism! (1916), and Conscription and Motherhood (1916), passionately denounced the principles of conscription and expressed fear over the erosion of trade-union freedoms. All three pamphlets stressed that once adopted, conscription would outlast the war as a permanent measure. Conscription and Motherhood spoke of conscription reducing national freedoms and transforming the function of English motherhood into suppliers of cannon fodder. Conscription Enters the Workshops has a cartoon on its cover of the Kaiser and a bloated British businessman, both labelled as “Prussians” and both praising conscription as the best way to defeat England. Conscription or Trade Unionism argued that with conscription, strikes could be countered with mobilization orders and the use of martial law against recalcitrant workers. Kneeshaw foresaw a future fight of conscription against trade unionism; the two forces could not co-exist. With proper union tactics, “ten thousand Lord Milners will fail to impose permanent Conscription on the British people.”118 Bruce Glasier’s two pamphlets, Militarism (1915) and The Peril of Conscription (1915), took Kneeshaw’s instinctual dislike of conscription to a higher theoretical level. Militarism outlined Glasier’s general case against heavy expenditure on armaments and the military’s erosion of civilian and democratic powers. British freedoms, including freedom of speech and of the press, were the key to its greatness and wealth. A new militaristic imperialism was arising rooted in fears of growing foreign competition and a desire by the ruling classes to reassert political control over wage-earners. The Conscriptionists were front and centre in this attack on Britain’s civic traditions. Conscription would be used to maintain class interests and keep down labour agitation.119 With such arguments the left was able to show “compulsory military service as an attack on the very basis of British national identity,” endangering British traditions of liberty and “Prussianizing” the country.120 The National Service League would find it very difficult to refute such “patriotic” arguments. The league also found it hard to play down its image as an aggressive masculinized bully. Glasier’s argument in The Peril of Conscription went one step further. Compulsory military service was seen as only the thin edge of the wedge. Glasier felt that the Conscriptionists wanted to bring about

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

37

the full militarization of British society, not necessarily to win the war but to preserve the declining economic, social, and political position of the upper classes. The National Service League wished to use conscription as “a means of moral discipline and industrial efficiency.”121 The league’s proposals for mandatory cadet training were an attack on personal and civil liberties.122 Lords Curzon and Milner and two vice presidents, the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Meath, were described as “Tories, Tariff Reformers, Anti-Democrats every one.” Perhaps the only saving grace for the National Service League lay in the fact that Glasier’s fiercest words were reserved for Lord Northcliffe, who was outside the actual league.123 Glasier did not accept Conscriptionist assertions that they had the social interests of the working class at heart. He mocked the pretensions of Lord Milner and others for their “unprecedented zeal ... for the moral and physical regeneration of the working class, the welfare of the nation, the interests of the Empire.” Other Conscriptionist ideas about the quasi-Socialist analogy of equal rights and duties were similarly dismissed. Conscriptionists’ talk of the need for equal self-sacrifice for the war effort was spurious. They were willing to nationalize the manhood of the nation, but not the nation’s wealth. Furthermore, due to the exemptions needed to keep the war economy going, conscription would not truly be universal.124 Glasier’s and Kneeshaw’s hard-hitting pamphlets reveal the fears of anti-Conscriptionists, especially after the death of Lord Roberts. While neither Glasier nor Kneeshaw could single-handedly destroy the league, their virulent opposition illustrates the league’s controversial reputation during the war. This was exacerbated by its change of leadership. Roberts continually appealed to social arguments and had a simplistic, albeit sincere belief in democracy. More importantly, he personalized the movement. As a war hero and long-time advocate of the spiritual and social welfare of Britain’s soldiers, his identity as a domesticated adventure hero gave him a popularity and credibility that spokesmen such as Milner severely lacked. Given the vehemence of critics such as Glasier, Lord Milner had to try continually to make his public arguments for conscription in a defensive tone so as to convince the British public that he did not want to impose industrial conscription through the back door in the midst of wartime. The fact that his pre-war thinking had linked industrial conscription with social reform and military service only heightened suspicions.125

38

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

The British public accepted conscription in January 1916 with a minimum of fuss, but remained extremely suspicious of the pre-war advocates of conscription such as the National Service League. For trade unionists and those of the Liberal centre-left, Asquith was a more acceptable figure to impose conscription on the British public than Lord Milner. Asquith had been unenthusiastic about conscription and had delayed its imposition as long as possible. Some Liberal ministers such as Lloyd George had accepted the principle of military conscription as early as the Spring of 1915. With the formation of Asquith’s Coalition government in May 1915 and the government’s acceptance of the military’s demands for a seventy division Army, the political and military pressures for conscription became harder to resist. The final failure of the Derby Scheme in December 1915, falling recruitment, growing military losses, and further political pressures from Lloyd George and the Conservatives led to Asquith’s concession of conscription for unmarried men in January 1916. Only one leading Liberal cabinet minister, Sir John Simon, resigned in protest. Complications over the operations of the first act soon led to the passing of a second National Service Act in May 1916, which applied to married men also.126 The league’s August 1915 agitation may well have helped to create the political climate necessary for the passing of the first National Service Act in January 1916. However, the act greatly complicated the league’s future as a patriotic organization. The league was marked not just for supporting conscription as a war measure but for advocating it as a permanent means of transforming British society. After the horrors of the Somme and Passchendaele, such enthusiasms were unthinkable. Creative suggestions for the league’s position in the postwar world would be hindered by the impact of the National Service Act and the league’s odious and controversial reputation.

the decline of the league and efforts to amalgamate, 1915–1916 As the war progressed, it became increasingly obvious that the National Service League could not continue to grow and prosper as an independent patriotic organization. Though it finally re-activated its propaganda in the summer of 1915, its future remained uncertain. Its role as a lonely advocate for compulsory military service in peace-

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

39

time Britain had given the league a definite, if notorious identity. Once the war intensified and conscription became more of a possibility, the league began to have an identity crisis. In 1916 it attempted to amalgamate with another imperially minded patriotic organization, the Royal Colonial Institute. This failed effort at amalgamation reveals many of the problems faced by the National Service League in its efforts to transform itself for the post-war world. It also reflects the close associations between military and imperial propaganda that existed in wartime.127 Even before the passing of the National Service Act of 1916, the league’s demise seemed inevitable. As other philanthropic and patriotic causes vied for citizens’ attention, its finances took an enormous battering. Quarterly remittances of the branches to headquarters fell some 20 per cent between 1913 and 1914, and 47 per cent from 1913 to 1915. When examined regionally, league branches experienced significant variations between December 1913 and December 1915. Remittances for Bedfordshire, Bristol, Middlesex, West Sussex, and the Midlands remained about equal. Remittances for Buckinghamshire, Devon, Dublin, Kent, Monmouth, Northhants, Somerset, Suffolk, Surrey, East Sussex, North West Area, and North and East Ridings fell by at least half. Most other branches also recorded falls though not quite as dramatic. Only remittances for Wiltshire, Boston, and South Ayrshire actually rose.128 The league’s total subscription income for 1915 experienced a significant drop when compared month by month with 1913. In only one month was more subscription income collected in 1915 than in 1913, and that was in August 1915 when the league reactivated its propaganda. Apart from that sole exception, the story was one of a continuous downward slide in remittances. The difference between July 1913 and July 1915 was the lowest, with a drop of 19 per cent. The difference between December 1913 and December 1915 was the highest, with a fall of 56 per cent.129 After ruthless paring of league expenses, only three members remained as paid full-time staff by January 1916.130 Clearly the relaunch of the propaganda campaign in August 1915 had not re-vitalized the National Service League. At a General Council meeting in April 1916 it was mentioned that, after the veto on active propaganda was removed by the council, only one branch out of fifty took the opportunity to hold public meetings and that was confined to a single occasion.131 However, several branches, especially

40

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

in the Midlands, had undertaken new initiatives. On 22 September 1914 a department was opened in the league to assist the dependents of soldiers who were having difficulties with their separation allowances. On 19 January 1915 the league established a wounded and missing enquiry department that managed to forward needed information on a thousand wounded and missing men. Various individual league branches were also active. Hospitality was at the core of a number of branch activities. The Bristol branch worked with the Cavendish Association to form a Voluntary Social Service Bureau through which 1,200 people registered to offer hospitality and aid to Belgian refugees.132 The actions of other branches were less dramatic. The Bedford branch sent sandbags to the Front. In Sheffield money was raised for the Lord Roberts Memorial Fund for Disabled Soldiers and Sailors and a large number of voluntary helpers were recruited to work in canteens for munitions workers.133 Recruiting assistance was also notable. In addition to participating in the Derby Scheme, the Voluntary Recruiting League was inaugurated as an offshoot of the National Service League on 3 September 1914. Few records of this organization survive, but it claimed to be responsible for over 6,000 recruits through some 300 meetings. All of its expenses were paid for by sales of league badges to rejected recruits and other ineligible men. The Voluntary Recruiting League was wound up in October 1915.134 In addition to the work carried on by the specific branches, the various initiatives launched at the beginning of the war had come to fruition. By June 1915 the league had one hundred volunteers helping with unofficial War Office correspondence. These workers directly answered 25,000 letters and sorted close to a quarter million others. In addition, the league classified applications for interpreters and military appointments at the War Office and compiled casualty lists containing 180,000 names. Other clerical work included an information bureau for social service volunteers which interviewed over 2,000 volunteers and found suitable work for four-fifths of them. The two final initiatives were appeals by Lord Roberts: the Field Glass Fund continued after his death under the guidance of Countess Roberts and by 31 March 1915 almost 21,000 field glasses and telescopes with a value of £100,000 had been collected; and Lord Roberts’s saddle appeal led to the collection of 7,000 saddles worth £24,000, which were sent to Woolwich.135

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

41

All the league’s wartime initiatives were undoubtedly useful and appreciated by those who benefited from them. Nevertheless, they reveal how far the league had begun to stray from its original purpose. The wartime league had become a clerical assistance, civic welfare, and philanthropic agency writ large, yet unlike other patriotic organizations such as the Victoria League or League of the Empire, the National Service League had had only minimal previous contact with the world of philanthropy and civic welfare. This is unsurprising because of the league’s strong masculinist bias and its lack of active female leaders or members. The National Service League’s specific militaristic message and its lack of experience in these matters made it ill-suited to its new role. In addition, the Government was finally acting to fulfill the league’s long-cherished goal, the imposition of compulsory military service. The road to the passing of the first compulsory service act has been well chronicled by historians. Almost immediately after the act was passed, Richard Lambert wrote the Parliamentary History of Conscription (1917).136 Since that time, historians have continually re-examined the importance of conscription in wartime British politics and its impact on the eventual disintegration of the great Edwardian Liberal Party.137 Its effect on the Conservative Party, though less devastating, has also been considered.138 One of the key ideological debates concerning conscription in the First World War has been the question of “Freedom and Control.”139 However, historians have devoted little attention to the impact of the act’s passage on the National Service League. The passage of conscription legislation put the National Service League into considerable disarray and created uncertainty over its future. The secretary’s report of January 1916 put direct blame for the drop in league revenue on the act’s passage. It claimed that as propaganda had ceased, a drop in subscription receipts of 30 per cent for the first eighteen months of the war was not “unduly alarming.” Furthermore, the lack of new members was compounded by high losses of league members “killed at the front.” Figures comparing December 1915 and December 1913 revealed a true crisis, with subscription revenue falling 50 per cent in the most recent quarter. The secretary noted ominously that “a great many people are now withholding their subscriptions as they consider that our work is done until the war is over. Even Secretaries of the League have suggested closing

42

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

down their Branches until Peace is declared.”140 Placing all blame for the decline in revenue on the National Service Act partially obscures the fact that headquarters remained active in 1914 and 1915, in part due to enormous and anonymous single donations of £3,000 and £5,000 for each year respectively. In 1916 only one single large donation of £1,000 was received. When the numbers were evaluated, total headquarters’ income for the year ending March 1914 stood at £16,522. This declined to £16,136 in March 1915 and to £8,136 by March 1916. Total headquarters’ expenditure for the same period to March 1914 totalled £16,445 and the numbers for 1915 and 1916 were £15,790 and £5,007 respectively.141 The possibility that events might dictate a new role for the National Service League, allowing it to re-enter the fray, arose in the spring of 1916. A letter from the league’s secretary, R. Macleod, to Royal Colonial Institute stalwart Sir Harry Wilson (1859–1937) referred to the possibility of an “immediate and big campaign by the League” in support of the conscription of married men. However, his enthusiasm waned when he foresaw that if a campaign proved unnecessary, “the question of amalgamation will immediately arise.”142 The Easter Rebellion in Ireland in the spring of 1916 put the appropriate pressure on Asquith’s coalition to pass a second National Service Act and it turned out that league agitation proved unnecessary. Whether the National Service Act’s passing was the sole cause or not, the National Service League was clearly entering a period of terminal decline. One solution to halt this decline was amalgamation with another like-minded organization. To this end, the league entered into serious negotiations with the Royal Colonial Institute (rci) in 1916. These negotiations have not been given due regard in the historiography of the National Service League or the rci.143 This episode is worth examining in greater detail because a successful amalgamation might have ensured the league’s continued success in the post-war world and helped transform its militarist image. However, a strong desire for organizational autonomy and mutual suspicions made any merger impossible. The rci was an older and better established body than the National Service League. Originally founded in 1868, the organization had a more studious nature than the National Service League, and included Fellows who debated imperial questions with critics of the Empire at periodic meetings. It grew in numbers from approximately two hun-

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

43

dred in 1869 to about 15,000 in 1920. Despite its size, it was not a mass organization and was considerably more refined and even-tempered than the militaristic National Service League. The institute’s membership was entirely male until 1909, when women were admitted with associate status. Women were only admitted as Fellows in 1922. At the time of the Great War, members were primarily Anglo-Saxon and drawn largely from the professional classes. The colonial service and commissioned ranks of forces were especially large sources of membership. As a popular organization, however, the institute’s work was limited. It had long been involved in certain popular efforts such as an annual student essay contest, and was an early patron of the Empire Day movement. However, for the most part it followed its academic inclinations, publishing annual proceedings in the nineteenth century and a monthly journal from the 1890s. By the twentieth century, its growing library was one of the best in the world on the British Empire.144 In gendered terms, it is evident that the institute practised a restrained masculinity removed from the more robust masculinist presence of the National Service League. In some ways, the institute’s differences from the league made it an attractive and complementary partner. Lord Roberts’s daughter wrote to Lord Milner in February 1916 expressing her view that her father might have approved the merger and subsequent broadening of the league’s aims.145 However, the completely different world views of the organizations led to problems. Naturally enough, the institute was far more interested in increasing British knowledge of the Empire, promoting imperial unity and encouraging imperial ties through increased trade, industry, and migration. One of the earliest versions of the merger scheme drawn up by the institute ranked advocacy of “the principle of universal military training” and the promotion of coordination of imperial military forces far below other non-militaristic goals.146 These objectives changed slightly as negotiations with the National Service League proceeded. The minutes of a meeting of the joint committee of the two organizations from May 1916 listed national service as second among the three objects, although now it was to advocate for the principle of national service throughout the whole Empire.147 The route to amalgamation was tortuous. Discussions first began early in 1916 when the rci chairman Bevan Edwards had private discussions with the National Service League. It was agreed that a joint

44

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

committee be nominated to conduct formal negotiations.148 One area that led to great disagreement was the new organization’s name; the league felt it had the institute’s approval to include the words “National Service League.”149 Though seemingly a trifle, the name of the group would prove to be crucial in determining the place of the patriotic organization in the post-war world.150 Disagreements over the name of the new organization were only the tip of the iceberg. The rci, whose membership, imperial vision, and overall ethos were so different from the strident and militaristic National Service League, had immense trouble grasping the concept of a complete amalgamation. The institute constantly raised objections that revealed its suspicions of the entire project. One major objection was that the larger size of the General Council of the National Service League would overwhelm the institute in the new joint executive council. The league’s secretary, R. Macleod, a hearty supporter of amalgamation, tried to explain away such concerns as “imaginary difficulties which I really believe are immaterial.”151 Macleod even went so far as sending confidential documents in his letter to the rci’s Sir Harry Wilson that showed that any league advantage was strictly temporary. Macleod calculated that the institute would soon dominate the new joint council because of the impending retirements of twenty-four senior league members of the council between 1916–19 and because three league members, including Lords Meath and Milner, were already vice presidents of the institute. Furthermore, leading league opponents of amalgamation, such as Lord Curzon, would probably drop out.152 Despite Macleod’s shocking disdain for league confidentiality during negotiations, the institute remained unconvinced. Money was another area of disagreement between the two organizations. Sir Charles Lucas, chairman of the council of the rci wrote to Macleod on behalf of his council requesting a statement of the league’s “exact financial position” and liabilities. The fact that the rci had substantially larger assets than the league made it nervous about amalgamation.153 The status of women members was another area of disagreement. Ironically, this put the National Service League in the unusual position of being an advocate of women’s rights. In June 1916 the rci voiced its opposition to allowing women who subscribed £2 and upwards to the National Service League to become full Fellows of the institute. Macleod argued that, although the league did

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

45

not have a large number of women members, their contribution had been important and they had “done considerably more than half the work.” Macleod saw the institute’s suggestion that women only be allowed right of entry to one room, accompanied by a “male of some sort” as “rather Victorian” and having a “disastrous effect.” However, Macleod’s solution was not path-breaking. He suggested that the women subscribers in question be allowed to become Fellows, and that although they would not need male chaperones, they would retain “a right of entry to one room only in the existing building.” Such tokenism belies any principled stand on behalf of the league’s female members. Such ingratitude to the contribution of women to the league, coupled with the changing position of women in British society, did not bode well for the league’s continued existence whether amalgamated with another patriotic and imperial society or on its own.154 Concerns over money and the status of female members were not the only difficulties the league faced. The rci’s hesitancy over a speedy amalgamation with the National Service League turned into outright opposition as the summer of 1916 wore on. The essential disagreements concerned the name of the new body and its finances.155 League reaction was swift, and it found that no further purpose would be served by additional meetings of the subcommittee.156 Feelings within the league over amalgamation were also mixed. Amalgamation supporters believed the negotiations offered a golden opportunity to redefine the league’s role: some form of military training could be combined with a greater imperial vision. A memorandum from June 1916 gave the official league rationale for joining forces with the rci. It clearly outlined how the National Service League proposed to adapt to the changing social and political environment of wartime Britain. Three points are worth noting. First, it claimed that the league and the institute complemented one another. The institute had a large membership and a “splendid Club House ... in London” but was confined almost solely to the capital. Conversely, the league had no permanent home in London but strong branches throughout England, especially in the Midlands and the North. Second, the merger would reactivate the league’s branches and give them a definable task for the immediate future. Former league members could take the opportunity to instruct the greater population on

46

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

imperial issues, which would keep them active and able to fight again for compulsory service if the need arose. Finally, the memo noted over-optimistically that the merger would address one of the league’s largest pre-war problems, its lack of support amongst the working class and especially organized Labour. Ignoring the fairly narrow class basis of the institute’s membership, the league felt that the war offered a merged organization the chance to overcome working-class indifference towards both imperial unity and compulsory service. National service could no longer be represented as “an insidious attempt to enslave the democracy” while the Empire was “no longer regarded as ... [the sole] preserve of the capitalist class.”157 The failure of negotiations led to substantial soul-searching among league figures. George Shee wrote to the institute’s secretary, Sir Harry Wilson, after the amalgamation plan had failed, lamenting the failure of “this great chance of constructive Empire work ... [merely] because of some petty question of forms, name, detailed legal quibble.” Shee had held high hopes for the union of the two bodies: one dignified with the prestige of 48 years of quiet work and a fine Library and Headquarters in the heart of the Empire, but with no present platform, no machinery, no tradition of enthusiastic propaganda; no touch of Imperial democracy ... [while the other was] full of the elements of a really magnificent eagerness to serve the Empire, and above all to serve and preserve it, with organization which, even in its present rusty and partly dismantled condition (so large a portion of its best and noblest members being at the Front, or having already laid down their lives) is still, perhaps the best that any Society has ever had in this country. Shee added that the fact that “leading Labour, intelligent, patriotic, awakened Labour [might] ... see that the Empire is no monster of Jingoism and aggression, but the noblest opportunity ever offered to the democracy of one race.” Shee felt that the planned merger added up to a “vision, indeed worthy to ask and to receive, [and] the best service that any of us can give [is] towards its realisation.”158 Although ultimately defeated by the intransigence of the Royal Colonial Institute, internal opposition to amalgamation within the National Service League also played a role in the proposal’s demise.

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

47

Lord Curzon established himself as a critic of amalgamation with the institute at an early stage. Curzon is an interesting figure in the wartime story of the National Service League. His biographers have pointed to his lofty persona and achievements.159 Though his reputation had been partially sullied by his inglorious exit from the Viceroyship of India, he still remained a formidable figure in British politics. His involvement in the National Service League was one of his many causes. His first official biographer, Lord Ronaldshay, notes that Curzon believed “compulsory military service [would have] a moral, spiritual and educative value of the highest order,” though he “was also satisfied that some form of compulsion was essential on purely military grounds.”160 Curzon put forward his vision of compulsory military service in a series of speeches before 1914, several of which were published in Subjects of the Day.161 After 1914 his patriotic writing continued and even included poetry.162 Although he did not relish the role of stump orator, Curzon spent the early period of the war addressing meetings “on the origin of the war and the nature of the task which faced the people.”163 Nevertheless, despite his speech-making, he yearned to be at the centre of political events. One of his most recent biographers, David Gilmour, entitles his chapter on Curzon between 1914 and 1915 “In Search of a Role.”164 Curzon was included in Asquith’s coalition government of May 1915 as Lord Privy Seal. Exactly one year later, he was appointed as president of the newly created Air Board. Curzon’s first suggestions for the future role of the league were straightforward. Although the first National Service Act had led to the conscription of single men aged eighteen to forty-one in January 1916, there remained both the question of married men and the application of conscription to Ireland.165 At a meeting of the General Council of the National Service League on 6 April 1916, Curzon argued that the league launch an active propaganda campaign towards these objectives. In the next month, the second National Service Act extended conscription to include all men aged eighteen to forty-one. The passing of the second National Service Act coincided with the failure of the amalgamation effort with the Royal Colonial Institute. In June 1916 Curzon had yet to rise to the political heights he would under Lloyd George’s coalition government. Perhaps as an outlet for his prodigious energies, he took a passionate interest in the fate of the National Service League and argued fervently against amal-

48

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

gamation. He received letters supporting his stand from important league leaders such as the Duke of Wellington and Sir Henry Craik.166 One less notable member of the Representative Council of the league wrote Curzon suggesting that joining other patriotic organizations such as “the National Defence Union, British Empire League, the Victoria League or even the Primrose League” made more sense than the existing proposal.167 Curzon was not shy about letting his opposition be known. At the 23 June 1916 meeting of the Representative Council of the National Service League, Curzon opposed the amalgamation scheme “on principle.” Curzon’s main focus was on the post-war period. During the war, it was not necessary for the league to take up new visions to keep it active. It would be better to remain in “a state of animated suspense [sic].” Once hostilities were over, the league could reactivate its propaganda.168 Curzon made considerable efforts to drum up opposition to the scheme amongst the league’s membership. After the 23 June 1916 meeting Curzon circulated a memorandum to secretaries of the league’s provincial branches. This memorandum outlined the basis of Curzon’s opposition and his alternative vision for the league’s wartime and post-war mission. He gave several reasons for launching into his opposition. His first reason was purely spurious. He claimed that he acted out of “affection for Lord Roberts” and a desire to keep his memory alive. The difference in personalities between the two men, as well as the lack of meaningful correspondence between them during Roberts’s final days, makes this claim weak. His second reason was more credible. He argued that the National Service League was primarily concerned with British domestic policy whereas the Royal Colonial Institute by definition was concerned with the Empire.169 With this in mind, he argued that the National Service League’s ultimate goal of compulsory military service could be enacted through “the organization of democratic opinion in Great Britain.” Quite correctly, Curzon noted that the self-governing Dominions had their own defence needs and determined their own policies. Efforts to promote compulsory military service outside the United Kingdom would only lead to resentment.170 Curzon argued that no wartime changes such as conscription could be assumed to be permanent. After the war, there would be a need for a “powerful and independent fighting organization with a definite National Service programme.”171

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

49

Instead of the amalgamation, Curzon put forward another plan entirely. During the war, the league could serve as a propaganda organization for patriotic unity. Until the final victory, it should educate the public “on the need of united national effort” in the war. Second, the league would also organize a parliamentary committee in the Commons to watch over the interests of the Army. Third, the league could promote physical training for primary and secondary school pupils in co-operation with the Board of Education and local education authorities. During all of this work, the league should adjust its machinery and be prepared for immediate propaganda work in peacetime.172 In a written addendum to his second memorandum, Curzon outlined the need to bring organized labour onside. He remained blind to the fundamental ideological objection held by Labour followers to conscription. For Curzon, past difficulties stemmed from “misunderstanding and ... willful misrepresentation now being industriously pressed by our opponents.” The existence of compulsory training schemes overseas, especially those enacted by Australia’s Labour government, showed that conscription was “in no way inconsistent with democratic principles.”173 Curzon’s opposition was not the sole cause of the collapse of the amalgamation plan. However, it did show that the league lacked a united leadership. Curzon gathered only scattered support. His most earnest follower was Patrick Joseph Hannon (1874–1963), a businessman and political enthusiast who supported many causes. In 1910 he had run unsuccessfully as a Unionist in East Bristol and went on to serve as vice president on the grand council of the Tariff Reform League from 1910 to 1914. He served as a member of the general council of the National Service League as well as the general secretary of the Navy League from 1911 to 1915. He went on to be Unionist mp for Birmingham (Moseley) from 1921 to 1950 and was director of the British Commonwealth Union, a pressure group for British industry, from 1918 to 1925. Hannon believed the best future for the National Service League lay in its transformation into a voluntary association in support of the Army, both during the war and after. Curzon sadly lacked a substantial number of other practical and like-minded supporters, and his cause was further hurt by his uneven attendance at league meetings because of ill-health and too much work.174 Curzon’s intervention revealed both the advantages and disadvantages of his involvement in the league. On the positive side, he

50

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

was absolutely correct to realize that the granting of wartime conscription could not be seen as the final victory of the National Service League. Peacetime politics were bound to return the army to voluntarism. He also pointed to possible alternative paths for the league. His ideas on a parliamentary committee were intriguing, though not popular with the league. His suggestion for physical training in schools was prescient; a clause in the Education Act of 1918 gave local education authorities the “power to promote social and physical training.”175 This was not the same thing as compulsory cadet or adult military training but it might have formed the basis for the league’s revival once wartime conscription ended. More negatively, Curzon’s intervention was ill-timed and contributed to the failure of the negotiations with the Royal Colonial Institute. After the league failed in a subsequent outreach to the “patriotic labour” movement, Curzon would dissent a second time. His actions showed the problems of having distant aristocrats, particularly those encumbered with official government duties, manage a popular patriotic movement.

patriotic labour and other visions of the league, 1916 After the failure of the merger with the Royal Colonial Institute, an intense debate erupted over the National Service League’s future. The forces advocating outright closure of the league during wartime were ultimately successful but further options existed. One was an attempted outreach to the so-called “patriotic labour.” Additional proposals came from the active mind of Lord Curzon. These solutions showed some creativity in trying to reconcile the activities of the league with the social and political changes occurring in British society. Ultimately these proposals failed. Nevertheless, they represent interesting alternatives that the National Service League might have pursued as a way of ensuring its survival in the post-war world. Throughout the pre-war period, the National Service League had a very uncertain relationship with the Labour movement. The Conscriptionists found themselves tarred with the brush of militarism and anti-labourism. These accusations were not without some substance. Grassroots resolutions proposed at general council meetings in the spring of 1915 claimed that organized labour was shirking its duty. Resolutions urged the replacement of able-bodied store clerks with

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

51

women and called on the league to “assist in recruiting workmen ... for making munitions.”176 Both proposals, though rejected by the league, reveal that some members were all too ready to interfere with the labour force. This type of thinking can hardly have appealed to the organized labour movement, which was concerned throughout the war with the dilution of labour by female workers and the threat of industrial conscription.177 Even before the final failure of the merger proposal with the Royal Colonial Institute, the league tried to make more durable contacts within the world of labour. On 31 July 1916 a proposition to the National Service League was received from James Seddon, chairman of the organization committee of the British Workers’ National League (bwnl). Seddon was the former president of the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, not a militant industrial or miners’ union. Nevertheless, he had served as chairman of the parliamentary committee of the tuc and, from 1906 to 1910, was Labour mp for the Newton Division of Lancashire. The British Workers’ League’s origins lay in the Socialist National Defence Committee, a Labour organization founded in April 1915 to oppose pacifists and support the war effort through propaganda and by-election work. One of its key members was Victor Fisher, a former journalist, private secretary, and banker, who later devoted himself to politics. Fisher moved from the Radical wing of the Liberal Party through the National Democratic League to the Fabian Society and, eventually, the Social Democratic Party.178 Both Fisher and Seddon were important contacts for Lord Milner. Milner spent much of the early part of the First World War trying to create a “patriotic labour” organization independent of the National Service League. In an important article, John Stubbs has chronicled Milner’s efforts and provides rich detail on the world of “patriotic labour.” He notes the formation of the British Workers National League in March 1916 and the hopes that it raised. He also takes the story down to the general election of December 1918, when the National Democratic and Labour Party (ndp) ran candidates, often as part of Lloyd George’s Coalition. Stubbs’s work is invaluable for revealing the efforts of Milner and others to create a patriotic alternative to the Labour Party. Unfortunately, in chronicling Milner’s wide range of activities, Stubbs is unable to give the National Service League more than cursory attention, incorrectly stating that the National Ser-

52

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

vice League and the Royal Colonial Institute’s negotiations successfully concluded in amalgamation in June 1916. He also overstates the degree to which the National Service League or even the institute were the creatures of Milner alone. In Stubbs’s view, from June 1915 onwards, Milner was manipulating the league, the rci, and the Socialist National Defence Committee in the direction of “a powerful working-class lobby in favour of national service, limited social reforms and Imperial Unity.” While this was probably Milner’s ultimate goal, his influence in achieving it was strictly limited. Both the league and the institute openly debated their own futures, and their ultimate decisions reflect the limits of Milner’s “manipulation.”179 James Seddon’s political views on conscription are laid out in his pamphlet Why British Labour Supports the War, originally written for an American audience. In this work, Seddon argued that British labour supported the war as a crusade against “Prussian militarism.” To defeat this scourge, trade unionists changed their previously pacifistic views on foreign affairs, accepted the temporary dilution of long-held labour rights and swelled the Army with volunteers. Clydeside militants were dismissed as “mischief-makers” and conscientious objectors as “national blacklegs.”180 Seddon proposed that a joint subcommittee be appointed to determine a shared post-war program and organization between the National Service League and British Workers’ National League. Echoing his previous opposition, Lord Curzon strongly urged that Labour representatives must not join the National Service League believing amalgamation with the Royal Colonial Institute was a certainty.181 In August 1916 the sub-committee of the National Service League and the British Workers’ National League met to discuss the adoption of a potential scheme for national training after the war. This scheme had eleven points that foresaw a long-term commitment to national training for all British citizens. Physical drill in school (including some military exercises) was to be compulsory to age fourteen. This was to be followed by compulsory cadet training for the next four years. Between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one all youths would enlist in the Territorial Force and engage in yearly training of six months in the first year and a fortnight in subsequent years. Finally, citizens were to remain in a Territorial Reserve until age thirty. The scheme stressed that the Territorial Force would be for home defence only and its use abroad would require special parliamentary legislation. Similarly, these forces could not be

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

53

used in industrial disputes. The regular professional army would continue to be voluntarily recruited. Officers in the Territorial Force would be granted commissions through merit and those who were exempted from service due to physical unfitness would be obliged to pay an extra graduated income tax.182 There are several important points about this scheme. To begin with, it placed far more emphasis on physical drill and cadet training for boys than the National Service League’s pre-war schemes. Second, it tied conscription to the Territorial Force, an argument introduced by the pre-war National Service League to link it to Haldane’s Army reforms.183 Other progressive features of the scheme include its proposed limits to the use of conscripted soldiers abroad and in industrial disputes. These limits reflected an openness to labour concerns. Criticisms of the permanent use of conscription to form a mass army officered by an aristocratic elite were addressed with the continuance of a voluntary regular army and the merit principle for officers. In this way, the league sought to refute some of the chief accusations of its opponents. That such fears would exist even in the midst of a major war reveals how poor the league’s image remained for the labour movement. This draft scheme was considered by the joint sub-committee, which consisted of D.E. Anderson, Col G.R. Crosfield, George F. Shee, and R. Macleod of the National Service League, and C. Duncan, mp (Barrow), J. Seddon, G.B. Stanton, mp (Merthyr Tydfil), and Victor Fisher of the British Workers’ National League. Discussion of the various clauses of this draft scheme reveal the effort of the National Service League to reconcile itself to the growing presence of organized labour and the labour movement in British society. Negotiations between the bwnl and nsl raised considerable debate. The biggest issue revolved around the length of compulsory training required in peacetime. Labour members on the sub-committee believed a six-month training scheme would cause substantial political difficulties and that the proposed cadet training made it unnecessary. Naturally the National Service League members disagreed, pointing out that the war had revealed the importance of extensive peacetime training.184 In place of the National Service League’s scheme, the Labour representatives most strongly advocated adhering to the Australian scheme of compulsory military training. This had a variety of factors favouring it from the point of view of the British Workers’

54

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

National League. First, the Australian scheme was in existence and had been introduced by a Labour Ministry in the “most advanced democracy in the world” with considerable public support. If the Australian scheme could be adopted as a model, the representatives of the British Workers’ National League were ready to launch a propaganda scheme to support it so a bill might be ready before the war’s end.185 It was finally agreed to recommend that the Australian scheme be adopted as the model to be followed. The sub-committee noted its belief that the bwnl preference for the Australian scheme “was due far more to considerations of practical politics and the desire to achieve a tangible result as quickly as possible than to any real prejudice against the longer period advocated by the League.” All agreed that the conference represented “an immense advance towards the adoption of a measure of national service by national consent.”186 One final issue of note concerned the readiness of the representatives of the British Workers’ National League to sit on the general council of the National Service League. The frank views of even the most “patriotic” element of the Labour movement were illuminating. Seddon spoke for all the Labour representatives present when he stated unequivocally that “it was impossible for him or his associates to join the Governing Council of a Body which was so intimately connected in the public mind, whether rightly or wrongly, with the advocacy of conscription, and with a party, class and aristocratic attitude on the subject.” This firm refusal mellowed considerably when an expansion of the aims and objectives of the National Service League was considered. Seddon added that “if the League were merged into a body having wider imperial aims which should include compulsory military training he would be glad to join such a body and actively to co-operate with it.”187 Ultimately the National Service League’s outreach efforts to Labour failed. The inability of the league to adopt wider imperial aims fatally undermined its negotiations with even the most “patriotic” labour representatives.188 At the same time, the failure to amalgamate with the Royal Colonial Institute deprived the league of the chance to re-make its identity in an imperial direction. The success of the two outreach efforts was ultimately tied together; their failure was a common one. The true importance of the British Workers’ National League to the National Service League lay in the contacts that were made for the future. None of the members of the bwnl executive was active in the

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

55

nsl.189 Lord Milner, though not on the bwnl executive, made a personal crusade out of the cause of “patriotic labour” while simultaneously serving as chairman of the National Service League. After the league finally collapsed in 1917, several nsl personnel followed Milner into the world of “patriotic labour.” R. Macleod, the longtime secretary of the National Service League and a strong advocate of the Royal Colonial Institute merger, lent administrative help to the bwnl. By March 1917 Macleod was advising Milner on the finances of the bwnl and by June 1918 he was serving as its parliamentary advisor. The chief organizer of the bwnl, G.W.S. Jarrett, was also previously involved with the nsl.190 P.J. Hannon was another crucial figure. His pressure group, the British Commonwealth Union, played a key role in the finances of the British Workers’ League during and after the 1918 election. Both Macleod and another former National Service League figure, Col George Crosfield, were involved in helping to administer these funds, which amounted to a subsidy of about £300 per month from March 1919 to February 1920.191 Crosfield eventually became a major figure in the British Legion.192 Despite some impressive administrative contributions after its collapse, the bulk of the nsl membership remained cold to the whole outreach effort. After the unsuccessful negotiations with the institute this second failure proved fatal. Outside Lord Milner’s efforts little desire existed within the league to embrace the opportunity. Even if the National Service League had accepted the embrace of “patriotic labour,” its future would still have been uncertain. The ndp, the political offshoot of “patriotic labour,” did not prosper in the post-war world. It reached its greatest strength in the December 1918 election, when it put forward twenty-eight candidates, twenty of whom received the Coupon (a letter of endorsement signed by both of the major leaders of the Coalition government, Lloyd George and Bonar Law). Of these candidates, only ten who received the Coupon were elected as mps, including J.A. Seddon for Stoke / Hanley. Fisher received the Coupon in Worcestershire / Stourbridge but was defeated. Once in Parliament, the party quickly petered out. Their independent identity was in doubt from 1920 onwards, as it was considered to be merely the Labour wing of Lloyd George’s coalition government. Before the 1922 election the surviving ndp mps joined the National Liberal Party and only one was re-elected. After 1923 the party no longer existed.193

56

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Although the outreach to the British Workers’ National League was ultimately unsuccessful, it did show another path that the league might have followed. It is true that far more time and effort were spent by the National Service League considering amalgamation with the Royal Colonial Institute than with the world of “patriotic labour.” Nevertheless some firm conclusions can be made. First, the National Service League was conscious of its unpopularity amongst the Labour movement. Second, the National Service League was concerned enough to try to do something about it. Third, only a Labour organization with firmly “patriotic” values would consider a dialogue with the nsl. And finally, even in negotiations with as patriotic a group as the bwnl, little common ground could be found with the main lines of the National Service League scheme. Clearly, the nsl was out of touch with the emerging tenor of British society. Even in the midst of the Great War, other patriotic bodies besides the nsl were aware of the liability of lengthy compulsory military service in peacetime. The league’s patriotic proposals were both specific and controversial enough to offend the sensibilities of the general public. It was also associated with the army which, despite its improved image during the war, remained unpopular as a peacetime institution. By December 1916 it was evident that the league would close down for the remainder of the war. Even at this juncture, Curzon considered other possibilities for the National Service League. A memorandum found in Curzon’s papers suggested an entirely new idea, the creation of “The Britons Imperial Veterans Association.” Though it is difficult to ascertain whether Curzon himself wrote this memorandum, it shows some effort to think about the post-war world. The memorandum considered the National Service Act to be only “a temporary triumph.” It was necessary to increase the level of imperial and national self-consciousness created by the war. To achieve this, it was vital to have an organization that would anticipate the formation of veterans’ organizations throughout Britain and the Empire and be able to coordinate them. Local associations of war veterans would be modelled on the existing Old Comrades Associations that gave relief to poorer members and gathered on a yearly basis to promote morale. The National Service League, as a trustworthy body whose “soundness ... had already [been] proved to the Nation,” would be perfect for this task. This new work would help preserve the league’s organization, and retain its involvement in “national and Imperial security.”194

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

57

The similarities between this scheme and the British Legion that emerged after the war are notable. Field Marshal Haig, the former commander-in-chief of British forces in France, devoted considerable effort after the war to create an imperial veterans’ organization to cement imperial ties, assist veterans, and immunize veterans against the spread of Bolshevik propaganda.195 The Legion’s founding document preached the promotion of “democratic comradeship” amongst veterans, unity amongst the classes, and loyalty. Its National Constructive Programme of 1921 combined commemoration of the war dead, promotion of peace, and co-operation between imperial veterans’ organizations. It also worked to ensure the soundness of the Empire’s defences. Its national objects concerned veterans’ welfare through maintaining pensions for disabled servicemen and assisting those who found themselves unemployed.196 While Curzon’s scheme vaguely echoed the ethos of the British Legion, it is extremely difficult to imagine the National Service League being acceptable to British soldiers for such a post-war scheme. Organizations such as the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilized Sailors and Soldiers and the National Union of ExServicemen leaned much further to the left than the National Service League in their defence of veterans’ interests, and sometimes openly co-operated with organized Labour.197 The Legion was well suited to post-war associational culture: it went out of its way to present itself as non-partisan, an identity that the National Service League would have found impossible to maintain. Perhaps the National Service League might have become an unapologetically right-of-centre veterans’ organization after the war, but this was not to be.198 Regardless, the notion of “The Britons Imperial Veterans Association” was another potentially constructive suggestion that was ignored. However, league figures such as Lt Col George R. Crosfield did play a role in the Comrades of the Great War and later the British Legion, eventually serving as its national chairman between 1927 and 1930 and being elected to head an international veterans’ organization, the Comité International des Anciens Combattants, in 1936. In the 1930s he became a leading advocate of friendly relations with Germany.199 Both the attempted outreach to Labour and plans for a veterans’ organization resulted in failure. By late 1916 it was becoming increasingly obvious that the league would have to shut down for the duration of the war or risk complete disintegration. Curzon would fight

58

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

once again against the tide of change but his voice was overruled and the once proud National Service League would be no more.

the end of the national service league, 1917–18 The closure of the league is an important episode in the evolution of patriotic organizations during the First World War. Its demise showed that the war had altered the landscape for organized patriotic movements. Efforts to broaden the membership and purpose of the league failed; the league’s militarist reputation proved insurmountable. Its inability to evolve with changing public sentiments showed that organized patriotic movements could not remain static if they wished to succeed in post-war Britain. In all, the dynamics of the war greatly affected the league’s raison d’être. Supporters who believed in the social benefits of conscription could continue to support the league in peacetime. However, pre-war supporters who saw conscription as the best way to prepare for a future war against Germany or simply as a vehicle for anti-Germanism had more difficulties. The former could hardly argue such preparation was necessary after 1918. The latter could choose more virulent organizations, such as the Anti-German League, for their passions. The final debate over the league’s future revealed how competing visions were put forward and ultimately rejected in favour of closure. In its balance sheet for the year ending 31 March 1917, the league reported assets in excess of £11,000, but there were continuous overhead expenses and declining annual income, despite reduced operating costs. Although the league was operating a skeleton staff, it still required £4,800 per year to keep it running. Three quarters of this total went towards salaries and one-tenth towards printing costs, including the publication of the league’s wartime periodical Occasional Notes. While subscriptions were maintained at over £1,000, donations fell to a very low £68 and badge sales to a ludicrous 5s. Receipts from the branches totalled some £2,900.200 Even if the league had maintained its absolutely minimal operations, falling revenue might eventually have forced it into bankruptcy. The first serious efforts to close down the league came at the general council meeting of 23 November 1916. Reports were read of the unsuccessful negotiations with Labour leaders and the Royal Colo-

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

59

nial Institute. Opinions differed over what course to pursue. Some voices argued to wind down the league entirely. Rather than abandon the cause completely, it was also suggested that the league close down temporarily and rise to fight another day. Lord Milner argued that such a temporary closure would allow the league to retain the several thousand pounds it held, which could be used to “re-start the League or help another body with the same objects after the war.”201 On 18 December 1916 a letter of explanation from Lord Milner was issued to league members, with a summons to a representative council scheduled meeting the next month to debate possible closure. In his letter, Milner argued for shutting down the league but also presented dissenting views. He pointed out that a majority of the membership felt the league was frittering away its resources on actions peripheral to its central purpose. The shutdown proposal outlined in the December letter was severe. Closure would involve the dismissal of all paid officials of the league, with only one or two exceptions, as well as the closure of all branch accounts. League funds and branch funds would be placed on deposit pending resumption of operations. With such draconian measures, league expenses would be reduced to a few hundred pounds a year. Milner’s argument for shutdown reveals the wide-reaching impact of the war. Already over four-fifths of the league’s headquarters staff were out on service, and the vast majority of honorary secretaries were deeply engaged in war work or service. The league had pledged not to campaign during the war, and experience had proved that to do so was impossible. A majority of the council felt that the league could not take up other issues, as any half-hearted efforts would harm the league’s reputation. Branches were engaged in various civic welfare projects but such work was felt to be unconnected to the special objects of the league. As the balance sheet had indicated, money was at the heart of the league’s decisions for the future. Subscriptions had fallen off by 80 per cent in the first quarter and shutting down was essential to preserve the league’s investment of £10,000 in Government securities. Some council members held dissenting views. If their advice had been followed, the league might possibly have found a place for itself in the post-war world. The dissenting minority correctly believed that even a temporary shutdown would be fatal to the league’s long-term existence. Even as late as December 1916 issues existed that rallied the

60

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

dissenters. For example, they felt that the National Service Act was incomplete and that the age limit might be raised further. Despite the Easter 1916 Rebellion, the diehard presence on the league felt conscription might “have to be applied to Ireland and it may have to be more widely extended to Great Britain.” Therefore, disbanding an organization still capable of rendering useful service would be a mistake. The financial situation of the league was put in the best terms possible, the dissenters arguing that the £6,770 received in the first three quarters of 1916 proved that the league still had a considerable “reserve of strength and enthusiasm.” In addition, the dissenters foresaw a rapid return to the pre-war situation once hostilities were over with conscription condemned and the nation again unprepared.202 The dissenters’ vision was both a rejection of the majority argument favouring a shutdown, and a rejection of the league’s past wartime measures. Their desire was for the league to remain independent to fight for goals after the war. Acknowledging the failed merger with the rci and the Labour movement, the dissenters suggested not only that the league continue to exist but that “it should desist from all attempts to amalgamate itself with other bodies.” The dissenters argued that branches lacking in personnel ought to be replenished from the ranks of retired officers. Propaganda could resume. Cadet training for boys between fourteen and eighteen should be an immediate priority. Once the war was finally over, the league, through these continued wartime actions, would then be ready “to resume with vigour the fight for the main principles upon which the continued assertion of which the future of our Empire and race will in all probability depend.”203 Lord Curzon and P.J. Hannon continued to be the leading dissenters to a shutdown. At a general council meeting of the National Service League on 8 December 1916, Curzon continued to argue for propaganda on cadet training and to support future government initiatives, a position supported by Hannon in early 1917. However, it was decided that a communication be sent to the branches by the chairman embodying the council’s policy and accompanied by Lord Curzon’s policy so that “the Branches might choose between the two alternatives.”204 This letter was Milner’s already discussed letter of 18 December 1916. The major showdown finally came in the meeting of the representative council of 16 January 1917 at Church House, Westminster. The

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

61

meeting was chaired by Lord Rochdale and was well attended by such important league members as the Duke of Wellington, the Countess Roberts, Sir Henry Craik, mp, Lt Col Crosfield, G.F. Shee, and league representatives from most of its major branches in England. Conspicuous by their absence were Lords Curzon and Milner, both of whom had been appointed to Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, as Lord President and Minister without Portfolio, respectively. Milner and Curzon had already had several heated exchanges of letters, with the former accusing the latter of being too far removed from the league to realize its fatal weaknesses. By 10 December 1916 the two men seem to have agreed to disagree, and Curzon had urged Milner’s inclusion in the War Cabinet.205 The chairman argued strongly in favour of closure. He claimed that, in his home area of Lancashire, it was proving impossible to carry on the work of the league. He was sure that the league would be required again in the post-war period but saw no alternative to wartime closure. The omnibus resolution was proposed by Shee, whose book The Briton’s First Duty had begun the league in 1902. It asked that all activity of the league be suspended from 1 February 1917 and that all branches’ accounts be closed on the same date. Balances from the branches were to be paid into the headquarters account within two weeks of closure and the money refunded once the branches re-opened. All uninvested funds in possession of the league were to be invested in Government securities. All paid officials of the league were to be given three months’ notice of their termination of employment. Shee’s explanation of the resolution was straightforward. He stressed that the proposal merely “confirmed the actual situation of affairs and turned a de facto state of things into a de jure one,” that much expenditure had ceased anyway with the resolution to drop all propaganda and that no great call existed that could stir the league into activity. Most of the men active in the league’s machinery had served the country since the beginning of the war, many at the front. Many of the women serving the league had undertaken practical war work since the beginning of the war. The argument to close down the league was seen as incontrovertible. If they carried the resolution, “they would preserve their strength, conserve their energies, keeping their powder dry and a substantial sum in hand which would enable them to decide what form their activities should take at the end of the war.”206 However, Shee had to face

62

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

some opposition to his plan. P.J. Hannon attempted to move a series of blocking amendments, which the chairman refused. Instead, members were allowed to vote on an amendment that the word “not” be inserted in Shee’s resolution between the words “be” and “suspended.”207 The fate of the National Service League rested in the discussion and debate over Shee’s resolution and Hannon’s amendment. League members attending the meeting were divided on the issue. Some of the grassroots believed the league should stop taking in subscriptions while “practically doing nothing in the public eye” and limit themselves to voluntary work such as the “the question of Cadet Training.” League branches, such as the one at Bedford, argued that they could not close down quickly as they were occupied in war work.208 But most of the representatives strongly favoured Shee’s resolution. Miss Bruce, a representative from Gloucestershire, argued that should the country not adopt national service after the war and the league was to carry on post-war propaganda, it had to have both money and the “respect, esteem and trust of the people of this country.” To continue to collect subscriptions in wartime without being involved in active work would make the league “bankrupt in both these respects.” When the resolution and amendment were finally put to a vote, it was obvious where the league membership stood. Hannon’s amendment that the activity of the league not be suspended found only three supporters besides himself. The resolution moved by Shee was carried with four dissentients. Finally, it was proposed that the general council be the last part of the organization to continue to exist in absolutely minimal form and that it employ only one person to answer letters.209 Hannon’s rearguard action was a stunning failure. Hannon admitted defeat, though he felt that it had not been fairly obtained. In a letter to Curzon he pointed out the failure of his counter-motions and made clear his low opinion of the remaining membership. In Hannon’s view, “The meeting was composed practically entirely of very elderly gentlemen and four or five women.” Hannon calculated that, of the thirty people present at the meeting, twenty-three of the gentlemen had an “aggregate age of 1735 years” [about 75 years old each]. Unsurprisingly, Hannon felt that Curzon’s perspective was given insufficient attention and Curzon himself insufficient respect. Curzon’s goal was doomed to failure, despite Hannon’s energy.210

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

63

The dissenters’ failure revealed several things. The league had been unsuccessful at finding a new identity in its discussions with the Royal Colonial Institute and the patriotic wing of the Labour movement. Its main task had already been fulfilled in the heat of war. As a single issue group, it quickly became redundant. Its efforts to find other roles in wartime were perfunctory and undistinguished. The contrast of its humble civic welfare work during the war to its fierce and all-encompassing pre-war rhetoric could hardly be more striking. The league ended with a whimper and not a bang. It seemingly had no role to play in the British society emerging from the First World War. Curzon himself quickly resigned and sent a letter to the league’s secretary on 17 January 1917.211 Curzon’s inept performance in the dying days of the National Service League echoes his ill-fated tenureship of the League for the Opposition to Female Suffrage. In the latter case, he refused to release the funds for propaganda at the decisive moment when the female suffrage clauses of the Representation of the People Act were being debated in the House of Lords in 1917. At the time, he seemed to indicate that he would lead the struggle against the bill in the Lords. Yet, after giving some fairly strong speeches against the women’s suffrage clause, he abstained and said that he felt that, as Government leader in the Lords in wartime, he did not wish to create a conflict between the Lords and the Commons. Some anti-suffrage league commentators claimed that Curzon’s action was decisive in allowing the female suffrage clause to pass. Anti-suffrage loyalists such as Mrs Humphry Ward pursued Curzon over this matter with some vehemence. Curzon’s dislike in dealing with assertive female anti-suffragists became evident in this episode.212 A comparison of Curzon’s actions in the two leagues is instructive. He was unable to discern the ultimate course of the movements in either case and he misread the final crises of both organizations. In both cases, his self-assured and ill-informed actions managed to alienate him from most other members and even leaders of the organizations in question. It serves as a fitting example of the problems of the aristocratic leadership of the popular right.213 Far removed from the grassroots and daily activities of such organizations and cocksure of their sweeping judgment of the health of such organizations, aristocratic leaders often proved to be more a hindrance than a help. This was especially true when such leaders served simultaneously in the

64

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Government. At times of crisis, leaders such as Curzon invariably supported the Government and not their patriotic leagues, perhaps afraid of losing prestige or the power to influence public policy. After the January 1917 meeting, the National Service League ground to a complete halt. The league continued in existence legally, and the council office maintained a minimal presence to answer correspondence.214 Records of the league’s meetings and reports after January 1917 make melancholy reading. The league held its fifteenth annual meeting on 16 August 1917 to deal with strictly technical business, and the attendance was quite small. The report and balance sheet for the year ending 30 March 1917 was approved at this meeting. The report noted how the January 1917 decision was carried out. Employees of the league who “had served it long and admirably” were treated “as generously as possible” with each case being considered individually by the league’s finance committee. In March 1917 the National Service League’s offices on Victoria Street in London were requisitioned by the Government and the skeleton staff remaining were sent to humbler lodgings at Adelphi Terrace. By 31 March 1917 the league had reorganized its finances so that it had a bank balance of £675 and various investments totalling £9,750. The report remained optimistic about future work for the league and hoped to be able to use the services of some of the staff again.215 The 1918 report and balance sheet painted an even starker picture. The sixteenth annual meeting of the league must have been even more of a formality. No discussion was recorded to have occurred, and the only document produced was the bare bones financial statement. The remaining assets were considerable, with a bank balance of some £1,451 2s 11.5d and investments including interest worth some £11,228 8s 6d. Incredibly, in addition to bank interest and investment income, the league still received £357 2s 9d in subscriptions between 1917 and 1918 and £217 6s 5d in receipts from the branches. Standard operating expenditures were slashed to £587 1s 9.5d.216 These figures indicate the enormous drop in expenditure that resulted when the main activities of the league were closed down. They also reveal the substantial amount of assets the league still had available as late as May 1918. Had the league re-appeared after the war, it would have had ample means to do so. However, the post-war world was not a hospitable place for militaristic Edwardian patriotic leagues.

The Decline and Fall of a Militaristic Patriotic League

65

conclusion The National Service League effectively ceased its operations in 1917. After the First World War, the archival trail is sparse. There is no document pertaining to the final dissolution of the league. There is a brief reference in The Times that the National Service League resolved to wind up in 1921 and allocate its remaining assets (approximately £10,000) to the Boys Scouts Association.217 This date is confirmed by several other historians. No further periodicals or reports were issued by the National Service League after the end of the First World War and no historical evidence exists to suggest it was ever re-activated.218 Although the National Service League had ceased to exist, the issue of conscription and compulsory military training did not fade away. Several National Service League stalwarts such as G.G. Coulton continued to produce pro-conscription propaganda.219 The question of conscription, or at least compulsory military training for youth, also flared up again in the general election of 1918. In this election, Lloyd George pledged to end conscription throughout Europe and the postwar British army quickly reverted to voluntary service.220 Other league members continued to write and agitate but on different causes. As mentioned previously, Macleod, Crosfield, and others continued to follow Lord Milner and his vision of “patriotic labour” through their organizational and administrative work with the National Democratic Party. J. Ellis Barker and F.J.C. Hearnshaw, both of whom had written books and pamphlets for the National Service League, also published work in the post-war period, although they were now more concerned with Britain’s lagging economic performance and the socialist threat than with compulsory military training.221 Hearnshaw also served as chairman of the Victoria League’s Education Committee and as an ex-officio member of its executive committee from 1923 to 1930, though he did not discuss military training in either of these posts.222 Despite such superficial activity, it was evident that as a public issue or patriotic cause, conscription was dead. As Anne Summers noted, “Popular British militarism after 1918 had nowhere very much to go.”223 The inability of the National Service League to revive itself after the war was unsurprising. After the Armistice in November 1918, there was considerable popular pressure to proceed with demo-

66

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

bilization as soon as possible. Conscripted soldiers who remained on occupation duty in Germany were considerably discontented with their lot. Ill-fated efforts by Winston Churchill and others to send British troops to intervene against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War only led to further public disenchantment. The Labour movement flexed its strength repeatedly and the Conservative Party began a process of reform that led to the leadership of Stanley Baldwin. In this context, the National Service League had little chance. Its rosy wartime visions of a continuation of conscription into peacetime proved illusory. Its thoughts on possible efforts to rouse public opinion afresh in favour of the measure were equally misguided. Peacetime conscription was adopted in Britain by the Chamberlain government in April 1939 in response to the threat posed by Hitler’s Germany, but public enthusiasm for or against the measure was notably muted. Organized public agitation by a large patriotic group along the lines of the National Service League was not a factor in its adoption.224 Edwardian patriotism could not operate without change in the post-war world. Lord Roberts’s death predated the first Labour Government in Britain by only ten years but it might as well have occurred a generation before. There was more continuity between British society before and after the First World War than popular perceptions might warrant, but militant organized patriotism with an aggressively masculine voice was clearly an anachronism for mainstream Britons.225 Kinder, gentler patriotic efforts from groups concerned with imperial hospitality and education would have considerably more success. All of these new efforts would be led by groups with considerably higher female memberships than the National Service League could ever have mustered. Generally, the more amorphous their imperial aims, the more successful they would prove to be after 1918. This combination was sadly lacking in the National Service League, which accordingly went to its demise in the First World War.

2 Educating Imperialists: The League of the Empire during the First World War The League of the Empire was founded in 1901 by Mrs Ord Marshall to help spread a greater sense of imperial loyalty and unity by correspondence between children throughout the Empire. James Greenlee, Bernard Porter, and John MacKenzie remain the only serious scholars to have examined this understudied organization.1 By 1914 the league had become more sophisticated and was pursuing the goal of educational federation throughout the Empire. In practical terms, this primarily meant the promotion of teacher exchange. The league also promoted imperial education through a textbook scheme, contests for school children, and the promotion of Empire Day. The league’s popular imperialism was officially non-militaristic and non-political. Most members were female educators. Consequently, by 1914, the League of the Empire was far less controversial and far less masculinist than the National Service League. Furthermore, its pre-war activities and ethos would allow it to adjust smoothly to the emerging post-war associational culture. The First World War prevented the league from implementing its long gestating plans for educational federation. However, the war allowed it to educate its members about the practical value of the Empire, to project British values that could be contrasted to Prussian militarism, and to comment on domestic wartime political and educational reforms. During the war the league launched an ambitious “Imperial Studies” project, as well as public lectures. Although they were not the league’s primary concern before 1914, philanthropy and civic welfare work were also used as a major outlet for the league’s patriotic energy. These efforts had a strong educational flavour and

68

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

included the circulation of reading materials for front-line troops and the distribution of a Shakespeare memorial volume for badly wounded soldiers. The war did not prove to be the League of the Empire’s undoing, as it did for the National Service League. As the organization most directly connected to the British school system, it had the potential to reach the greatest audience in Britain. In reality, it remained far weaker than its major rival, the Victoria League, but still it was able to survive the manifold changes brought about by the First World War. However, its involvement with educational institutions meant that the war was disruptive. Ill-fitted for the production of propaganda pamphlets, the League of the Empire used other means to educate Britons about the relevance of the Empire. But the war would test the league’s generally optimistic view of the powers of education and reason to spread popular imperialism.

the personnel and organization of the league of the empire Any investigation into the personnel and organization of the league’s early history is hampered by the sparseness of existing sources. Most of the league’s office records were destroyed by bombing in the Second World War. From remaining documents and other sources, some key developments can be examined. Despite competition from similar organizations, the league grew considerably from its humble origins in 1901. The league’s upper levels of leadership were heavily populated with academics and former imperial administrators. Many of them had wide-ranging interests and wrote articles on imperial issues that appeared both inside and outside official league publications. The First World War did not disrupt either the league’s top levels of personnel or its finances, but while it survived the war it was not sufficiently vigorous to launch new programs such as Imperial Studies successfully. The league began as a fairly small-scale concern, focused primarily on children’s correspondence throughout the Empire. Membership figures were not regularly kept, but in 1906 its annual report estimated it had 23,000 fee-paying fellows. Further reports do not include updated membership estimates. However, increasing revenue shows that membership continually increased before the war. In 1905 the league had only £670 in receipts and expenditures. Two years later, this

Educating Imperialists

69

had risen to £1,460, with the increase mostly coming from a conference held in that year. By 1913 the league’s receipts and expenditures had increased to slightly over £1,700. Of its total receipts for 1913, £326 came from subscriptions, £584 from donations, and £437 from the Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations.2 During the First World War, the league attempted to sustain and even increase its membership. In 1915 Sir Frederick Pollock wrote that the league was attempting to keep its subscription terms “as low as possible so that the membership may be thoroughly democratic.” Members of the council paid an annual subscription of over £1, while the ordinary membership fee was 5s. The lowest level of membership were associates, who paid either 6d if they were under 16 or 1s if they were over 16 years of age.3 It is very difficult to determine the wartime and postwar membership of the league because of a paucity of published figures.4 However, Pollock claimed in 1915 that the league’s war work had “been much appreciated by the members and that during the last twelve months ... numbers have steadily increased.”5 An examination of the league’s finances shows Pollock’s words to be overoptimistic. League receipts fell in the early stages of the war, as happened with other patriotic organizations. In 1915 its receipts had fallen to just over £1,260, a decrease of almost £500 from two years before. However, revenue began to recover gradually and, by the end of 1917, exceeded its 1913 total. Within the overall revenue figures are some notable trends. For example, the amount received from subscriptions for 1915 was £290 and two years later it had fallen slightly to £267. However, other donations and special funds, such as that for flags and souvenirs, showed a significant increase, helping the overall receipts recover to their pre-war level, though wartime inflation had also increased costs significantly.6 Wartime efforts by the League of the Empire to receive grants from well-endowed sources such as the Rhodes Trust were mostly unsuccessful.7 Most important to the main league leadership were Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir Philip Hutchins, and Mrs Ord Marshall, as well as four academics: Professors A.F. Pollard, Ernest Gardner, Hugh Egerton, and John Bagnell Bury. All of these, save for Mrs Ord Marshall, were prominent public figures who had a number of different interests in addition to the League of the Empire. The president during the First World War was Sir Frederick Pollock (1845–1937). Pollock assumed the presidency in 1909 and was an

70

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

important figure in league activities. He was a man of wide academic interests: a noted jurist, legal historian, writer, and bibliophile. After studies at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, Pollock was called to Lincoln’s Inn in 1875. He was a prolific legal scholar, writing influential works on tort and contract. Further works covered diverse topics including jurisprudence, the Land Laws, the Law of Partnership, and Common Law.8 Until his death in 1906, the noted legal scholar F.W. Maitland was Pollock’s close friend and intellectual collaborator. Pollock also served as the editor of the Law Quarterly Review for thirtyfive years. Throughout his life he was an inveterate joiner of clubs and organizations, including “the Rabelais Club, the Alpine Club, the London Fencing Club and the Freemasons.”9 His membership in so many organizations, combined with his active scholarship, limited the time he had available to devote to the League of the Empire. Despite his undeniable talents, Pollock was not an ideal figure to serve as the president of an organization devoted to spreading popular imperialism. His scholarship and educational experience were more appropriate for a more elite organization. The league’s core audiences were elementary or secondary school students and teachers, two groups with which Pollock had few professional associations. In addition, by 1900 almost 75 per cent of teachers in England were female, making Pollock’s appointment all the more curious.10 As a patriot, Pollock was also too subtle for the league’s purposes. Politically, Pollock ranged between the Liberal and Liberal Unionist parties, mixing strong support for free trade with inconsistent opposition to Home Rule.11 His refined form of patriotism was more sophisticated than the league’s version.12 He had a long-standing interest in the constitutional arrangements of Empire. His Pollock Committee (1903–07), which emerged after the dissolution of the Imperial Federation League, hosted dinners at which papers on imperial topics were read by such experts as R.B. Haldane, Alfred Lyttelton, Lord Milner, and Arthur Balfour.13 While chair, Pollock called for “the creation of an imperial cabinet [and] a council of Empire overseeing the direction and co-ordination of imperial affairs.”14 According to James Greenlee, the fierce resistance his ideas met from fellow committee members, New Zealander W. Pember Reeves and Canadian Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier, helped Pollock realize that imperial unity might be secured only through “informal co-operation.”15 Still, he remained attached to ideas of imperial structures. In 1909 he

Educating Imperialists

71

argued in the pages of The Federal Magazine for maintaining the Empire through improved imperial instruments of defence and counsel.16 If informal co-operation through the League of the Empire was his goal, he lacked the requisite interpersonal skills as leader to accomplish them. After his death in 1937 obituary writers noted that, while he flourished in written communication, he found “it difficult to express himself orally” and “did not suffer fools gladly.” As he grew older he also “lost the gift of friendship which made it difficult for younger men or strangers to approach him.”17 Although Pollock made important contributions to the league as its president, he was not the ideal figure to lead it through the difficulties of the war. Sir Philip Hutchins (1850–1930) was another key figure in the League of the Empire, serving as the chairman of its Federal Council between 1901 and 1923. Greenlee describes Hutchins as a “well travelled imperialist and an experienced committee man.” Hutchins spent fifty years in India, serving as a judge on the bench of the High Court of Madras and was appointed in 1898 to the Council of India, from which he retired in 1908 to devote his attention to the league.18 Hutchins remains an elusive figure in the league’s wartime records. Though involved with much of its daily activities as chairman, records of his actual administrative work during the war have not survived. His importance might lie in his broad imperial experience. The creators of the League of the Empire wished their organization to be both credible and stable. The choice of Hutchins as chairman ensured both objectives would be realized. The most important female figure in the league was Mrs Ord Marshall (1851–1931). She was the moving force behind its founding, but had a significantly more obscure background than her male counterparts.19 Mrs Marshall was one of ten children of a rural vicar from Norfolk and had little formal education.20 Such origins make her rare among leading female imperialists, who tended to be “members of an imperial as well as a British elite.”21 However, she educated herself through reading and conversing with people prominent in public life. Later in life she earned the title of Officier d’Academie and the medal of honour of the University of Paris. In 1881 she married William Ord Marshall, a retired précis writer and librarian at the War Office. After his death in 1900 she devoted her energies to the cause of Empire.22 In 1901 she founded the League of the Empire, moved by the belief that the British Empire would benefit from increased inter-

72

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

action between its peoples. Her enthusiasm for imperial unity was crucial for maintaining the league. Despite her relatively humble background and lack of advanced formal education, she had considerable success in persuading eminent male public figures to contribute to the league.23 Her house on Belgrave Road in London later became the league’s headquarters. Professor A.F. Pollard (1869–1948) is perhaps the best known of the four academics involved with the league. Primarily a Tudor historian and a man of great energy, Pollard encouraged the rigorous formal study of history in England. Born to non-conformist middle-class parents, Pollard was educated at Portsmouth Grammar School and Jesus College, Oxford. After graduation, he worked as assistant editor for the Dictionary of National Biography. He began his formal teaching career as Professor of Constitutional History at University College, London, in 1903, a post he held until 1931. He was also elected a research fellow at Oxford. As a historian he wrote a number of works on the Tudors and the evolution of Parliament. Besides his publications, he is chiefly remembered for creating the Historical Association in 1906 and serving as its president between 1912 and 1915. He is also well known for his indefatigable labours in creating the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London between 1910 and 1921. On three occasions he ran unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Liberal candidate.24 His credentials as a professional historian made him an apt choice to serve as editor of the League of the Empire’s series of history text books. Pollard’s reasons for involvement in the League of the Empire were fairly complex. He joined the History Section of the league in 1904. He had strong views on the importance of proper historical education as an essential foundation for good citizenship. He was especially concerned that as the franchise expanded, working-class children “were not being properly trained to understand ... [their] national and imperial responsibilities.”25 During the First World War he expressed his concerns over further expansion of the franchise and the importance of history in a series of articles published in History. Pollard argued that democratic control could only occur in conjunction with increased education and added that “the only sound and permanent basis for an Empire lies in an instructed people.”26 The practical expression of these concerns for Pollard would come in his involvement in both the pre-war History textbook scheme and the wartime

Educating Imperialists

73

Imperial Studies initiative. Perhaps because of his scholarship on the organic and unplanned evolution of the British constitution, Pollard remained skeptical of any effort to construct an imperial constitution. This skepticism encouraged him to embrace the League of the Empire’s educational approach to promoting greater imperial unity.27 Another important academic figure involved in the league was Professor Ernest Gardner (1862–1939). Gardner was a classicist whose studies were not related to British and imperial history or the law. He attended the City of London School and later Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge, where he became a fellow. Gardner was the first director of the British School of Archaeology in Athens. He also served as a public orator at the University of London and as dean of the Faculty of Arts. Gardner joined the League of the Empire under his wife’s influence and served as a member of the executive committee from its earliest days, eventually rising to deputy chairman and chairman. His most important accomplishments for the league came in the post-war period when he organized two important conferences. However, before the war he also played an important role in the league’s History Section (also known as the History Committee), assisting with the preparation of the league’s imperial history textbooks.28 Gardner shared Pollard’s view of the importance of using history as an instructional tool to enhance the general public’s imperial ideals.29 He was the only leading figure in the League of the Empire to serve in uniform during the war, in contrast to the high rate of service in the National Service League. Because of his knowledge of modern Greek, Gardner served in Salonica on two tours of duty between 1916 and 1917. His service reveals his energy for a man over fifty, as well as the even more advanced age of his league colleagues, who were unable to serve. In his second tour, he was attached to the Intelligence Department of the Royal Navy, where he did cipher work and translations, and wrote weekly reports. While in Greece, he formed a small museum to display various relics found during the excavations of British trenches. The Salonica front was inactive during most of Gardner’s service, though he did help fight the Great Fire at Salonica in August 1917.30 His diary of wartime service is devoid of imperial sentiments even on Empire Day in 1916 and 1917, but his war service was much praised in League of the Empire publications.31 Professor Hugh Egerton (1855–1927), educated at Rugby and Corpus Christi, Oxford, was a very well-known member of the League of

74

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the Empire who was also involved with the Royal Colonial Institute. Egerton was a member of the Executive Committee of the Federal Council of the League and also served on the History Committee. Like Pollard, Egerton strongly believed that imperial unity was to be achieved through education. In 1897 he published his pioneering work A Short History of British Colonial Policy, which went into six editions by 1920. Other early publications included a biography of Sir Stamford Raffles and a collection of the speeches of the early Victorian colonial reformer Sir William Molesworth. In 1905 Egerton was appointed as the first Beit Professor of Colonial History at Oxford University. He believed that ignorance of imperial history was dangerous for the future of the British Empire and devoted his career to filling this gap in the public’s knowledge.32 A conscientious scholar, Egerton was most comfortable working with the intellectual elite. He felt that Oxford was the perfect location for furthering imperial education, as the recently created Rhodes Scholarships had made it “the intellectual meeting place of the Teutonic race.”33 A new study by Thomas Weber has bolstered Egerton’s point by arguing that Edwardian Oxford was suffused with imperialism throughout its student body.34 During the First World War, Egerton devoted much more energy to the lecturing scheme of the Royal Colonial Institute than to the League of the Empire. His efforts at reaching a wider audience through lectures was not always successful. He disliked popular history, preferring “historical discussions be conducted in a dignified fashion with proper respect for the sources.” Temperamentally, he was extremely nervous as a lecturer, a problem that remained with him to the end of his days.35 The final leading academic member of the league was Professor John Bagnell Bury (1861–1927). Bury was the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. He was also a member of the league’s Executive Committee and chairman of the History Committee. Educated at Trinity College, Dublin, he later held fellowships at Oxford, Cambridge, and the British Academy. Bury strongly believed that history should be considered a science and not “a branch of literature.” He believed historians should be able to revise their conclusions in the light of fresh evidence rather than being constrained by various “patriotic, philosophic, rhetorical and pragmatical obsessions.”36 His intellectual interests were wide-ranging and his best-known works were his histories of Byzantium and the later Roman Empire.37

Educating Imperialists

75

Very few of the League of the Empire’s leading figures had much experience in the administration or instruction of younger children or popular education. In the lower ranks of the leadership, people with different types of educational experience were more common. Montagu Rendall (1862–1950), who played a small role in the league in the wartime and pre-war period, would go on to play a major role after 1918. His position as Headmaster of Winchester from 1911 to 1924 brought him much closer to instructing children than his other League of the Empire colleagues, though his educational views were, if anything, probably even less progressive. J.A. Mangan has described Rendall as a “dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist” whose four main interests in education were religion, Latin grammar, sporting chivalry, and public service.38 In addition, his personality was not always found to be pleasing, especially by educators who had the misfortune of teaching far from the pleasant confines of Winchester.39 It is significant that few women were in true leadership roles. This might not be surprising in most imperialist organizations, but in one linked so strongly to the field of education, it is important. As previously mentioned the vast majority of English elementary school teachers were female and it had become one of the few recognized professions in which women could make an independent living. Although women did not dominate the British pre-war educational establishment, education was one of the few major areas in Britain in which it was considered appropriate for women to take on leadership positions and help form policy before the first concession of female enfranchisement in 1918.40 Mrs Ord Marshall was the major exception to the league’s heavily male leadership, but she played a very small part at league conferences and meetings compared with leading male members. Her most important league activity was serving as editor of its main publication, The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ a task she did without much fanfare. Unlike in the Victoria League, women were not seen as a key part of the League of the Empire’s leadership, although they made up a large part of the membership. One final characteristic of the league leadership was their advanced age. Pollard was the youngest at forty-five, while Pollock was sixty-nine when the war began. In 1914 the average age of the leadership was fifty-seven. Their advanced age meant that they came to intellectual maturity during a period before the boisterous imperial enthusiasm of the 1890s and the Edwardian period. It also meant that very few were young

76

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

enough to serve in the war. These two facts may help explain the generally reserved nature of the pre-war imperialism of the League of the Empire. Throughout its existence, the League of the Empire found itself competing with other imperialist groups, some of which wished to take it over. Its largest rivals were the Victoria League and the Royal Colonial Institute. The struggles between the League of the Empire and other organizations reveal the fractured nature of organized patriotism before the First World War and the perceived need to preserve autonomy. These struggles did little to boost the overall cause of popular imperialism but gave the league a strong sense of self-preservation, which proved valuable during the wartime and post-war crises. The Victoria League was one of the largest pre-war rivals of the League of the Empire. The Victoria League’s interest in education and hospitality led to concerns of encroachment into the League of the Empire’s territory. As early as June 1904 the League of the Empire protested the Victoria League’s proposal to enter a work it had already begun, school affiliation.41 Between 1908 and 1909 a special committee was appointed by the Federal Council of the League of the Empire to consider amalgamation with the Victoria League or a way to avoid rivalry and overlapping.42 The negotiations were complex and major disagreements arose over finances, organization, and areas of activity, amongst other issues. A tentative agreement to amalgamate was reached in June 1909 but proved fragile and soon collapsed with each side blaming the other.43 In the aftermath, a number of prominent League of the Empire figures resigned and joined the Victoria League.44 In considering the relationship between the League of the Empire and the Victoria League, two points should be noted. First, there existed an appreciation of a broad similarity in the aims and methods between the two organizations. Second, it was extremely difficult to convert this appreciation into action. Differences in associational culture between the two groups was crucial. Each group jealously guarded its own sphere of specialization and was unwilling to compromise. The League of the Empire felt that its semi-official status made it different from the Victoria League, despite the latter’s claim to being non-political. This gulf kept the two leagues apart, as they remain to this day, despite considerable evolution in their purpose and membership since that time.45 The League of the Empire was ultimately

Educating Imperialists

77

more successful in making firm ties with the world of education and “cornering the support of education professionals” than the Victoria League, whose domination by an “aristocratic female leadership” helped lead to its failure to accept “middle class allies and colonial supporters” as equals.46 Even during the crisis of the First World War, there was no talk of reviving the amalgamation scheme. The League of the Empire co-operated with many other organizations. Before the war, there was considerable overlap with the Royal Colonial Institute, which had a number of important committees on which league members served. Most important was the Visual Instruction Committee, which had created a range of handbooks containing written text and accompanying images for lectures on the Empire. These materials formed the basis of the league’s venture into Imperial Studies.47 Important league members sitting on this committee included Sir Philip Hutchins and Lord Meath.48 Another group of importance was the Overseas League, which had been founded as the Overseas Club in 1910 by Evelyn Wrench. This group was dedicated to maintaining the heritage of the British Empire and had grown to 100,000 members by the First World War.49 It affiliated with the League of the Empire in the autumn of 1910 without any apparent lasting problems. In this arrangement, the “interests and the special interests” of each league were carefully safeguarded.50 No controversies from the Overseas League were voiced in the annual meetings or publications of the League of the Empire. The First World War did not disrupt either the organization or the personnel of the league. Unlike the National Service League, the League of the Empire survived the war intact. It did not expand during the war, nor did it merge with any other group. Though the war sapped considerable momentum from the league, it did not destroy it.

the league of the empire’s views of the empire and its imperial work The League of the Empire existed to promote imperial unity. Its means of achieving this end were primarily institutional, with a heavy focus on schools. Sir Philip Hutchins best summarized the league’s approach when he said, “In order to influence the children of the Empire it was obviously imperative to seek the co-operation of those charged with their training, and therefore the League made a special-

78

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ty of educational work.”51 Before 1914 the league tried to promote this goal through conferences and publications. During that time, structural arrangements consumed most of the league’s time and energy. Once the war began, most of these structures could no longer be maintained and the league had to redirect its energies. One of the league’s major pre-war initiatives, its imperial text-book project, was transformed into an ambitious (if ultimately unsuccessful) effort to promote an Imperial Studies scheme.52 Other pre-war initiatives could not be changed so easily. Teacher exchange in wartime was impossible. Instead, the league put its energies into activities that required less infrastructure, such as Empire Day ceremonies, imperial flag presentations, and publicity for the Empire’s contributions to the war effort. Through these efforts, the league revealed its post-war hopes and fears for imperial development. While these activities had a modest impact in encouraging the British public’s enthusiasm for the Empire, they played a vital role in helping the league survive the war. A summary of the league’s work published in 1918 noted that the league had seven objectives: fostering imperial co-operation (especially “between schools and other educational institutions of the Empire”); providing a central organization for those “interested in Imperial work”; providing hospitality for imperial visitors; publishing imperialist materials; spreading general information on the Empire; promoting the migration of teachers in the Empire; and observing Empire Day.53 By 1914 considerable progress had been made in many of these areas and some of these initiatives survived the transition to wartime better than others. Fostering imperial co-operation was attempted in a variety of ways. Children’s correspondence was one of the league’s leading efforts. In 1901, in one of its first actions, the league set up a Comrades’ Correspondence Branch. This branch grew rapidly to 14,000 members in 1907, 22,000 in 1911, and finally 26,500 in 1913.54 In 1903 the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, sent a circular letter to all the Education Departments of the Empire requesting that they give the scheme favourable consideration.55 Early participants included county authorities in Cambridge, Kent, and Derby, and city authorities such as Birmingham (Joseph Chamberlain’s home town) as well as Bradford, Bristol, Salford, and Southport.56 Noticeably absent from those local authorities granting early approval were the larger urban

Educating Imperialists

79

centres of London and Manchester. This work was believed to be very important. At the league’s conference in 1912 Mrs Ernest Gordon, using domesticated language, claimed: “The imperial value of this work is hardly to be estimated. It practically makes of our children, widely scattered over the face of the earth, one united family, interested in each other’s surroundings, acting together for mutual interests, and so being trained to that wider sense of citizenship which is the high calling of our race.”57 Importantly, the Correspondence Branch’s work promoted an interchange of literature and newspapers throughout the Empire. The league insisted that the scheme was not restricted to teachers and children. The 1910–11 Annual Report stated that correspondents included men and women of all classes, such as farmers, bank clerks, civil servants, and “many mothers of families on lonely stations.”58 After the war began, there was speculation as to the scheme’s effect in cultivating a wider imperial patriotism. In 1916 Sir Philip Hutchins argued that for some soldiers, “Perhaps their first keen interest in the Empire sprang from their connection with their comrades in England and other countries, with whom they were probably now ... fighting side by side against the common enemy.”59 This point had also been made in a slightly less lyrical fashion at the league’s annual meeting in 1915.60 Whether such a far-reaching claim had much basis in fact is debatable, but the war did provide an opportunity to expand the correspondence scheme. By 1915 it had nearly 34,000 members. A 1917 article entitled “Comrades All” in the league’s children’s periodical ‘The All-Red Mail’ pointed out that letters included small gifts such as stamps, picture postcards, pressed flowers, and even “former living creatures of all sorts.” High hopes continued for this scheme in wartime. In the short term, the program would increase children’s interest in the Empire. In the longer term, children’s correspondence was thought to forge links that would continue into adulthood, strengthening the “bond of union between the different parts of the Empire” and giving them “a living interest in the Empire.”61 The league launched other initiatives to help build bonds between young students. In 1903 an effort to affiliate schools throughout the Empire was initiated. Another pre-war effort was the various essay contests held by the league. A senior competition for those aged fourteen to twenty and a junior competition were held annually, with the winners receiving a “silver challenge cup” to be held by the students’ schools, and

80

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

various small cash prizes. Essay topics had an imperial bent but were not militaristic. For example, the prize papers of 1913 included “The Development of Railways throughout the Empire” and “Colonies in Ancient and Modern Times: Their Development and Relations to the Modern State.”62 The 1914 topics were similarly benign and included “The Value of a Sea Coast to a Country” and “The Food on your Breakfast Table: Where within the British Empire it came from and how it was produced.”63 In wartime, topics took a definitely martial turn. In 1915 essays were requested on the wartime principles of the British Empire and its Allies and also suggestions for national, regional, and local initiatives to help in the war effort. The 1918 topics included a question investigating the causes of the migration of the first British settlers to America and comparing “their ideals with those which have led America to unite with the British Empire in this great World War.” The other topic for that year was “the story of the British Navy and ... how it has served Britain’s ideals of freedom and civilisation.”64 Another effort to increase imperial co-operation was the league’s opening of a non-residential club at Buckingham Gate in Westminster in 1913. The club provided a central meeting place for imperial visitors and those interested in imperialist ideas. Financed through the largesse of an Australian philanthropist, Sir Robert Lucas-Tooth, it was quite popular.65 The league’s other hospitality efforts included visits for overseas teachers and friends to historical places in Britain.66 Although the league was not able to launch a full-fledged teacher exchange scheme before 1914, it studied the idea extensively. There were calls from the grassroots to consider teacher-exchange as a means of dealing with the over-supply of teachers in England.67 In 1907 the league passed a resolution requesting financial and administrative arrangements to facilitate the migration of teachers “for purposes of study” to other parts of the Empire. The league noted that the primary obstacles to the plan were expense and organization. A circular letter to Education Departments requested governments to give special leave to teachers hoping to participate in such a scheme. The league proposed to make arrangements for specified tours and hospitality during short-term visits and to arrange educational facilities and special terms if a lengthened period of study was required.68 A parallel organization based in Manitoba called “Hands Across the Sea” had begun to arrange visits to Britain for Canadian teachers and it received the cautious endorsement of the League of the Empire.69

Educating Imperialists

81

In 1907 the first Imperial Education Conference of the Education Departments in the Empire was arranged and convened by the league. It suggested administrative arrangements that might lead to a greater sense of imperial unity. Most important amongst these were the mutual recognition of teachers’ certificates throughout the Empire, the promotion of interchange of teachers and inspectors, and closer uniformity in “curricula, nomenclature and methods of presenting official educational statistics.” No firm conclusions were reached on these issues. It was decided that the wide variety of local conditions made mutual recognition of certificates impossible, that financial and administrative arrangements should be made to promote interchange, and that uniformity of curricula and textbooks was not desirable or necessary. It recommended that published educational statistics should be more precise in their definition of terms. The main result of this conference was the general promotion of a “movement for Imperial solidarity and co-operation in education.” In addition, an Intelligence Department or Information Bureau was created to be consulted by teachers intending to emigrate to other parts of the Empire. It was also decided to hold future quadrennial conferences on education. These meetings would be convened by the Imperial Government and the first was to be held in 1911.70 The 1911 conference was held “to review and record the work of the League,” and further conferences were held in 1912 and 1913. In 1912 the first Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations was held by the league and attended by over six hundred delegates from throughout the British Empire. The most important sessions at the conference discussed how to co-ordinate education throughout the Empire. One paper called for the creation of a common Empire Certificate recognized by all imperial education authorities, which would enable teachers to emigrate to and work in other parts of the Empire more easily.71 Another key paper called on the league to lobby for steamship fare reductions for teachers as well as to provide hospitality and shortterm accommodation in a central clubhouse.72 The league’s response was to push the various governments of the Empire towards greater co-operation in educational affairs and encourage teacher exchanges. To achieve this end, the league offered the use of its social centre in London and its Information Bureau to provide introductions, apprise teachers of the best sources of study, and arrange possible appointments.73 In 1911 many teachers’ associations throughout the Empire

82

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

had begun to affiliate with the league. Consequently, by 1913, the League of the Empire had formed the Imperial Union of Teachers as a general body to which teachers’ associations could more easily affiliate.74 Another important league initiative launched in 1911 was a scholarship scheme for women that echoed the terms of the Rhodes Scholarship for men. The league scholarships enabled women to undertake a two-year program of post-graduate study at Oxford, Cambridge, or the University of London. The league justified the scholarships on the basis of women’s responsibility for “the education and progress of the nations of the Empire” and the corresponding need “to perfect their teaching capacity.”75 Such initiatives showed the league’s sensitivity towards its predominantly female membership and marked a stark contrast with more masculinist groups such as the National Service League. In all of its efforts, the league held a unique position. Although claiming to be non-political and purely voluntary, it was organizing conferences attended by official government representatives. The league understood itself to be acting as a “medium of communication” for official government bodies. A 1909 league publication saw this situation as “highly characteristic of the national method of developing national activities by way of private enterprise.” It stated that the conference’s voluntary nature was crucial for its success by lending it a “popular prestige and interest” that helped attract a wide range of speakers of considerable repute, including several heads of universities.76 Whether this proved to be the case or not, this arrangement allowed the league to remain independent, to hold semi-official status, and to receive official encouragement. The First World War drastically interfered with the progress of the league’s efforts at educational co-operation. A second Imperial Education Conference scheduled for Toronto in 1916 was postponed. Instead, an interim conference was held in London to maintain links between educationalists throughout the Empire.77 This conference was enlarged to include representatives of Britain’s allies, especially Russia. Consequently, the topics discussed were not nearly as focused on the Empire as they had been in previous years.78 As well as promoting popular imperialism through educational channels, in conjunction with other patriotic societies, the League of the Empire helped organize the first public celebration of Empire Day in London’s Hyde Park in 1909. Nearly 5,000 children took part

Educating Imperialists

83

in the first parade and it was claimed that nearly one million people were present. By 1911 celebrations had increased considerably and Lord Roberts took the salute at Hyde Park from 10,000 boys and girls on the Guards’ Parade Ground. Twenty-one separate societies and brigades co-operated with the league in this display, including such well-known groups as the Boy Scouts, the Church Lads’ Brigade, the Boys’ Brigade, and the Girl Guides. More obscure groups participating included the Lads in Blue Brigade, the Boys’ Home Industrial School Brigade, and the Foundling Hospital Brigade.79 Most historians, including Anne Bloomfield and Henry Cowper, have stressed Empire Day’s flag waving and heavy handed patriotism.80 Many have particularly considered the appeal of the militaristic brand of patriotism associated with Empire Day amongst the working class.81 Stephen Heathorn has argued that in some ways Empire Day was redundant, as the flag was ever-present in elementary school children’s “everyday reading materials.”82 Bernard Porter has argued that it was generally ineffective as a vehicle for stimulating popular imperialism. Porter has attributed Empire Day’s failure to lack of firm central government support, indifferent children, opposition from the Labour Party and Irish Nationalists, and often a content focused on English rather than imperial themes.83 The League of the Empire was never so pessimistic and hoped that Empire Day could stimulate some sort of imperial consciousness. Their optimism is supported by the most recent scholarship on Empire Day by Jim English. English has pointed to the wide-ranging popularity of Empire Day before 1914 for both adults and children as well as its cross-class support.84 The war did not lead to further Empire Day parades and marches but rather to a toning down of the usual celebration. The boisterous nature of Empire Day did not match the new serious tone of the war effort. In 1915 the council of the league felt that the usual parade would not be “in accordance with public sentiment” and that “some form of religious observance” would be more appropriate. Consequently, a memorial service was held at St Paul’s Cathedral in June 1915 to honour past and present imperial heroes. The service was attended by several royal figures, including Queen Alexandra and Princess Victoria. The sixty-four flags of the Empire were carried by a unit of the Boys’ Life Brigade. As in peacetime, a host of other patriotic associations took part in the celebrations.85 The league’s more solemn treatment of Empire Day fitted the way the war brought

84

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

about the first official acknowledgment of the occasion by the central government. From 1916 onwards the Union Jack was flown from all Government buildings on May 24 within the United Kingdom.86 After this official sanction, Empire Day continued to be a concern of the league, but with decreasing importance. Although flag waving was absent from the usual Empire Day celebrations, the Union Jack still played a significant role for the league. In the summer of 1916 Beatrice Chamberlain, Joseph Chamberlain’s eldest daughter, headed a league initiative that presented each dominion and colony headquarters with a silken Union Jack and a silver shield.87 Each shield was dedicated from the “Women and Children of the British Isles to the Overseas Heroes” and listed relevant battle honours.88 Over the next year the league presented its flags and shields to the contingents of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, and eventually India, Newfoundland, Rhodesia, and the Crown Colonies.89 The League of the Empire hoped these ceremonies would help underline the importance of the Empire’s wartime contributions. At the May 1917 presentation to the Crown Colonies forces, Walter Long, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, thanked the league for “its efforts in consolidating the good-will of the peoples of the vast British Empire in the determination to serve King and Country in the interests of freedom and justice.”90 Such ceremonies reveal the optimism of the League of the Empire on the unifying impact of the war. Children’s correspondence and essay contests continued without interruption and Empire Day, though altered to fit the more sombre wartime mood, remained. The presentation of imperial flags offered a concrete way of illustrating the league’s thankfulness for the contributions of imperial forces. While all of these activities were important for the league’s continuity in the war, the league also articulated its hopes for a renewed Empire. When thinking of imperial institutions for the post-war world, the league was more in its element on the micro- rather than the macrolevel. In 1918 the league called for the building of a residential headquarters in London for imperial teachers. This residence would serve as a memorial for their wartime services and sacrifices. It would also serve as a place where teachers might “meet and not only form friendships with one another but obtain facilities for wider insight into educational problems.” The residence was to have a lecture hall,

Educating Imperialists

85

a reception room, a reference library, writing rooms, and at least thirty bedrooms, each of which would be named after a “province or state of the overseas dominions.” To realize this very practical imperial dream, the league estimated in 1918 that it would need at least £25,000 as well as “a substantial sum for endowment and small travelling scholarships for teachers in need of assistance.” Perhaps noting the financial strains that the war had placed on the Empire, a league pamphlet noted that “Colleagues from America will also be welcome” and that the new residence would have a global not just an imperial impact. 91 The league made an unsuccessful appeal to the Rhodes Trust for funding and the project as originally formulated never came to fruition.92 Although this sum was beyond the league’s financial capacity, the proposal pointed the way for its post-war activity. After 1918 it proved impossible to advocate major political changes for the Empire, such as imperial federation or an imperial parliament, successfully; rather, the league’s future would lie in teacher exchanges and educational initiatives such as comrades’ correspondence and textbook publication.

the league of the empire, imperial studies, and imperial publications To promote imperial education, the League of the Empire published a variety of textbooks and plays as well as ephemeral material such as leaflets. The textbooks varied in length and complexity and were designed for different levels of readers. These works provided narratives of British and imperial history and also focused on underlying patriotic and imperialist concerns, including the growing power of the British Labour movement, democratic reform, social policy, and racial superiority. The books accepted certain reforming political trends while defending the status quo in others. The other material was generally aimed at younger readers and did not touch nearly as many issues as did the textbooks. The league hoped that its publications would lead to a greater level of imperial knowledge in the United Kingdom and throughout the Empire. During the First World War, the league saw these books as the nucleus of an Imperial Studies movement that would increase imperial knowledge and enthusiasm through study groups and popular education. By 1918 both the textbook and the Imperial Studies efforts had stagnated.

86

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

The league’s textbook scheme began in 1906. An indenture document dated 24 May 1909 described the creation of an Imperial Education Trust to finance and supervise the publication of a “series of graduated Text Books on the History and Resources of the Empire and the duties, rights and privileges of its Citizenship.” The scheme was financed by a bequest of £5,000 from the imperialist philanthropist Louis Spitzel. The league’s Editorial Sub-Committee included Mrs Ord Marshall, secretary, Professor A.F. Pollard, general editor, and Professor J.B. Bury, chairman. Other members included Professor H.E. Egerton and H.A.L. Fisher, Fellow of New College, Oxford, and of the British Academy. The books were to be written with the cooperation of the countries of the Empire and writers of “special knowledge and ability.” Profits from their sale were to go into a general trust fund that would finance further publications and revisions, history scholarships for imperial students, and funds for “other purposes of Imperial Education without distinction of class, creed or country.”93 The league hoped for the widest possible circulation of its textbooks. In addition to appealing to colonial education departments to provide relevant and up-to-date information for the textbooks, it made generous arrangements to ease colonial publication. Colonial governments that adopted the league textbooks in their schools were offered the ownership of the books’ “stereotypes or electrotype plates.” Printed copies would be provided at the cost of production only.94 The three main textbooks published by the league were Pollard’s The British Empire: Its Past, Its Present and its Future (1909), Edward G. Hawke’s The British Empire and its History (1911), and Gerald T. Hankin’s The Story of the Empire (1911). The textbooks foreshadow the league’s ability to adapt to social and political change: they combine sometimes progressive interpretations of political and economic developments within the United Kingdom with more oldfashioned notions of race and empire. Pollard’s volume was the first contribution to the series and the most ambitious. While Pollard served as general editor, fifteen contributors are listed in the book, of whom seven were academics and three were civil servants. Only one of the contributors, Sir Frederick Pollock, held any prominent position in the league itself. As this volume was the first in the series, Pollard’s preface outlined the goals and parameters of the textbook project. It proclaimed that the series wished to promote a knowledge and understanding of the Empire

Educating Imperialists

87

and the causes that had created it. This acquired knowledge would provide the minimal background of information “without which all discussion of Imperial questions is barren, if not productive of positive mischief.”95 Pollard insisted that the book’s views were not “inspired from Downing Street” and that as editor he encouraged a diversity of opinion.96 Although he did not directly indicate which level of students were to use the work, its size (over eight hundred pages) and complexity suggested secondary-school students. Pollard’s volume was divided into three major sections: “The British Isles”; “The Self-Governing States”; and “India, Crown Colonies and Protectorates.” The next textbook in the series was Edward G. Hawke’s The British Empire and its History (1911), which was intended for a slightly younger readership than Pollard’s text. The third and final book in the series was Gerald Hankin’s The Story of the Empire (1911). Hankin was assistant master at the King’s College School, Wimbledon, and his volume was “intended both for the middle forms of Secondary schools and for the highest classes of Elementary schools.” In his preface, Hankin was explicit about his purpose. His volume was written not merely as an academic textbook. Instead, he wished to help create citizens. Hankin noted that “the vast majority of future citizens of the Empire receive all the preparation they ever get for the intelligent exercise of their votes in Elementary schools.” Consequently, “special stress has been laid upon Citizenship – i.e. upon those factors in History which have had the most direct and important bearing upon the development of the Empire, and upon the rights, duties and responsibilities of the citizen.”97 In a 1910 letter to A.F. Pollard, Hankin wrote that the book was “suitable for the last year of those who leave school at sixteen & who will never learn any more history [as well as] for those who know nothing of English history before hand.”98 This level of explicit instruction in citizenship fits into a general trend of school readers of the pre-war period noted by Stephen Heathorn.99 However, in Hankin’s work, citizenship is not so explicitly linked to racial characteristics as in the readers central to Heathorn’s study.100 Hankin organized his book, like other league textbooks, into sections on “The British Empire,” “The Self-Governing States [of the Empire],” and “India, Crown Colonies and Protectorates.” Domestic political, economic, and social problems play a large role in the textbooks. In discussing these topics, some authors such

88

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

as Pollard reveal the league’s ability to adapt to the political changes in Britain and the Empire brought about by the First World War. Socialism and collectivism were major challenges faced by patriotic organizations before and after the First World War.101 In its section on Britain’s “Social Problems,” Pollard’s textbook acknowledged that the major social problem was the “submerged tenth”: the group in the British population whom industrialization had absolutely impoverished. Just above this group was another still larger class who, though not completely indigent, lived a marginal and penurious existence.102 This chapter laid out the charges made against the capitalist system by its collectivist critics. Amongst the criticisms examined were capitalism’s inequity, its wastefulness and inefficiency, and its immorality. Despite his consideration of capitalism’s critics, Pollard rejected collectivism as an alternative. Collectivism’s primary problems were discipline, efficiency, and psychology. Though an imperfect system, capitalism did instill an iron discipline through “the necessity of working.” In contrast, collectivism could only preach the “duty of work” and required “a quasi-military organization of industrial enterprise” to enforce discipline. For a collectivist alternative to work, the whole psychology of society would have to be remade. In contrast, individualism was presented as bringing numerous benefits for the working class. The problem was not competition between individuals per se but the present inability of many people to compete. The state’s role was to use its collectivist powers to create the conditions in which individualism could flourish.103 This discussion of the ideological and practical bases of individualism and collectivism is of some importance. To begin with, the League of the Empire was far more open-minded to collectivist criticisms of the capitalist system than politically partisan organizations such as the Primrose League.104 In addition, for a school textbook to serve as the medium for such criticisms is fairly remarkable. The league’s discussion of prominent domestic problems showed its willingness to approach the idea of popular education on the Empire in a broad manner. While rebutting the collectivist case, the author echoed the New Liberal position in which the State’s role was to help provide the pre-conditions under which individuals could realize their maximum potential.105 Pollard emphasized that there need not be any “antagonism between the individual and the State.”106

Educating Imperialists

89

In contrast, Hawke’s treatment of Britain’s social and economic problems was less open-minded. In his view of the United Kingdom, Hawke revealed a critical awareness of the depth of poverty but offered no suggestions to alleviate the problem. He also took an extremely optimistic view of the growth of Britain’s representative institutions without much criticism of their very real limitations. Hawke acknowledged instances of unrest by workers beginning with the Peasants’ Revolt in the Middle Ages and continuing until the Industrial Revolution. For the latter period, he stressed workers’ unsuitable living conditions, insufficient wages, and lack of political rights. Hawke estimated that 400,000 paupers in the United Kingdom were receiving relief at a cost of £14 million in 1905–06. Consequently, “the great problem of the near future is how to diminish this army of helpless poor.”107 Another major development discussed by Hawke was the spread of democracy. The rise of the factory system led to continued demands for an extension of the franchise. The British system of representation enabled “every class to have its interests advocated in the House of Commons.” Although Hawke admitted the existence of some remaining anomalies of the system such as the restrictive twelve-month residency requirement, he was sanguine about its generally representative nature; in Britain “the majority” were able to rule where once “a small minority monopolized power.” In contrast, New Zealand was described as a “pure democracy” with universal suffrage, no plural voting, woman suffrage, and triennial Parliaments. Hawke noted that such a system made it “easy for the Labour party to gain power and keep it” and did not recommend it for the United Kingdom.108 Perhaps because of his focus on teaching “citizenship,” Hankin took a measured stance between the positions of Pollard and Hawke towards Britain’s political and social achievements. On the one hand, Hankin was straightforward about the various problems he felt Britain had solved successfully, such as the position of the Crown in British politics, slavery, and religious toleration. In all three of these problems, Hankin pointed to the liberal solutions Britain embraced. Hankin also discussed the major problems that remained. Some of his points echoed those made by Hawke, especially the dilemma of dealing with a large number of paupers. Hankin noted the inadequacy of the Poor Law system but remained wary of changes that might negatively effect the “thrift and independence” of the poor. Hankin also

90

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

echoed the traditional league concern with education. He noted England’s backwardness in general education compared to Scotland and Wales, and the inadequacy of providing only elementary education for the working classes. Echoing his preface, he argued that a key role for educators was to teach boys and girls “the meaning of citizenship, and that they owe service to the State.”109 Beyond education and problems of poverty, Hankin touched on a number of other important topics not mentioned in other league publications. He addressed economic problems, including the remnants of the feudal system of land-holding and the proper role of the state in industry. A major social problem addressed was the question of national health, for which Hankin pointed to emerging Edwardian trends such as physical training in schools, medical inspection, cleanliness, and government planning. Hankin mentioned Edwardian Liberal solutions to the remaining problems of political representation. Rather than repeating Hawke’s view of the generally adequate nature of the Edwardian political system, Hankin acknowledged that other contentious issues remained for reform, including representation for further classes, redistribution, registration reform, the end of plural voting, salaries for mps and reform of the House of Lords.110 Some important reforms such as payment of mps and the limitation of the power of the House of Lords were tackled successfully by the Liberal Government between 1911 and 1912. Solutions to many of the remaining problems were attempted in various unsuccessful reform initiatives launched by the Liberal Government.111 The league textbooks also took varying approaches to the Empire. A great portion of Pollard’s book gave a Whiggish account of the development of the Empire. According to Pollard, Britain acted as an agent of civilization in India, improving its infrastructure, ruling in an orderly fashion, and ending its more barbaric customs. Even more relevant to the evolution of the league’s thought were the textbook’s words on the future of the Empire and the importance of education. On the future of the Empire, Pollard stressed imperial defence, trade, and legal issues as areas of great importance. Imperial defence required some form of rational and efficient organization but was handicapped by the British and imperial public’s “profound ignorance.” In law, the chief imperial problem lay in the absence of an established final court of appeal for the Empire. The existing system, in which cases could be referred to the judicial committee of the Privy

Educating Imperialists

91

Council and the judicial committee of the House of Lords, was seen as inefficient and undignified. With trade, the pressing need was to establish a preferential trade system between Britain, which held to a free trade policy, and the member states of the Empire, which had protectionist systems. Proposed solutions ranged from a general tariff on imports from which the Dominions might be exempted to a customs union or some system of non-protective preference. Specific discussion of Joseph Chamberlain’s controversial tariff reform campaign was studiously avoided.112 While the political and economic problems of the Empire were difficult to solve, if not intractable, the league was sure to include a section on the area more suited to its imperial expertise: education. The league believed education was a crucially important medium for unifying the Empire. The various Education Conferences that it sponsored were one step in this process, leading to both “imperial solidarity and educational improvement.” The former was promoted by “keeping the different countries in touch with each other, bringing their representatives together for common counsel, diffusing mutual information and assisting co-operation.” The latter was promoted by “providing for the discussion of educational aims and methods and the interchange of experience derived from the wonderfully varied conditions” of the British Empire. The league served as a “medium of communication” for Colonial Educational Representatives and as a voluntary agency with semi-official status.113 Pollard’s book is unique in the emphasis it places on education, which was not extensively referred to in the other textbooks. It is also notable for its references to the league, which revealed a desire to be known among the rising generation of young imperialists. It might also reveal an inflated sense of self-importance, for the league was only one of many imperialist organizations in this period, and not the largest. In contrast, perhaps because it was aimed at younger readers, Hawke’s The British Empire and its History painted a much simpler and starker picture. In his view of the Empire, Hawke posited racial hierarchy and race as a key factor in the development of Empire. Hawke’s history of Britain stressed the racial intermixture of the original inhabitants and subsequent waves of conquerors ranging from the Romans to the Anglo-Saxons to the Normans.114 The focus on race continued in the discussion of the colonies. In some cases, such as the discussion on the history of Canada, there was surprisingly little dis-

92

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

cussion of French Canadians or aboriginal peoples as a distinct racial group. This differed from Hawke’s treatment of Australia, South Africa, and India. Hawke devoted considerable space to the racial origins of the aborigines of Australia and their generally peaceful and undeveloped state. Hawke’s discussion of the “White Australia” policy also made pointed reference to questions of race, though primarily in economic terms.115 Hawke’s discussion of South Africa is also bound up with the question of race. He ranks the “native races” of South Africa based on their level of development, with bushmen as the “least numerous” and “least civilized.” In the middle were the Hottentots, a “pastoral people” with a fairly undeveloped language. At the top were the Bantus (described as a “warlike race ... with a strict system of tribal government”). Many of the problems of South African history are described as being racial in origin. Difficulties surrounding slavery occurred because of a mistaken belief that white men were degraded by manual labour. British attitudes to South African racial problems were said to be tainted by misinformation.116 The section on India, the last major area in the Empire covered in the book, also discussed racial matters. However, in this case, Hawke was content to describe the physical characteristics of various racial groups, including the Munda-Dravidians, Parsis, Aryans, and Ayro-Dravidians, without ranking them in a hierarchy.117 Hawke’s frequent references to race in his history and his desire to contrast the characteristics of subjected peoples to their British overlords echoes the pattern analyzed by Kathryn Castle in her study of the construction of racial images in early twentieth-century British children’s periodicals and history textbooks.118 The most notable imperial points in Hankin’s The Story of the Empire were military and economic. Hankin referred to the National Service League’s campaign for conscription, though without endorsing their cause.119 Alongside imperial defence was the problem of tariff reform. Hankin buried discussion of this extremely contentious Edwardian political issue in the less controversial category of “Revenue.” This way tariffs might be put forward as an alternative to the income tax in paying for “national defence and old-age pensions.” Hankin only incidentally mentioned that some hoped “a system of preference ... [would] bind the colonies closer to the Mother Country.”120 He noted that “the experiment has never been tried yet that a real democracy should be the centre of a great world-empire.”121 The key to combining empire and democracy was balancing the fluctuat-

Educating Imperialists

93

ing concerns of the electorate with the nation’s ability to act with steady strength. It is remarkable that a textbook meant for elementary or mid-level secondary students was so wide-ranging in its acknowledgment of Britain’s problems and prospects. To talk about complicated controversies such as tariffs and parliamentary reform, as well as the dilemma of combining democracy with empire, revealed a respect for the abilities of the young readers. It might also reflect uncertainty over the soundness of these same readers towards the great issues of the day and the desire to instill in them the “right” imperialist and patriotic attitudes. It could also reveal a weakness of the League of the Empire’s approach. Lacking leaders experienced in the challenges of popular education, the league might have placed overly complex concepts in school textbooks. Nevertheless, Hankin’s book, like all the others, attempted to provide a detailed world view for its readers. His books and the others tried to construct dutiful and loyal British citizens as well as instruct students in British and imperial history. Although the textbooks were the league’s major publications, they were not the only ones. It also published a number of lecture pamphlets and even plays for children. Like the correspondence scheme, the historical plays were aimed squarely at young citizens of the Empire. The content and the form of these plays reveal the league’s interpretation of the history of Britain and the Empire. Two volumes simply entitled Historical Plays were published by Amice MacDonell under the league’s auspices in 1909 and 1910. Covering a variety of topics ranging from Alfred the Great to Queen Victoria, the plays varied in length from one to four acts. MacDonell was a well-known children’s playwright before the war. She presented British history as an unbroken tale of progress and stressed the closeness of the monarchy to the people.122 Significantly, Queen Victoria’s motherly image was constantly stressed by emphasizing her personal love of domesticity and her maternal feelings towards the people of Britain and the Empire.123 On the surface, the sentiments of MacDonell’s plays seem straightforward enough. However, several of them echo league themes that were repeated throughout the war. The image of the Empire as a family was repeated as the war progressed. MacDonell’s Whiggish pattern of British history was not far removed from the image portrayed in the league’s textbooks. In addition to plays, the league produced a number of pamphlets that were meant to be delivered as lectures. The First British Colonies

94

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

(1904), by F.A. Fitzpatrick, a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, provided a comparison between the early British colonies in Virginia and New England. A relatively brief piece, it revealed a desire to keep alive Anglo-American ties as well as to highlight English virtues of tolerance, hard work, and private property. Fitzpatrick argued that the failure of the early efforts to colonize Virginia was due to the lack of hard-working respectable settlers and the failure to allow private property to instill a personal interest in settlement.124 In contrast, New England was settled by men who left England not to make a speedy fortune but with a firm resolve to find “permanent homes for themselves.”125 The other notable work was Empire Builders (1906), by W.K. Stride, a graduate of Exeter College, Oxford. Professor H.E. Egerton wrote the introduction to his pamphlet. Empire Builders is a series of biographies of figures who made important contributions to the building of the British Empire. As written, they were intended to be delivered as lectures verbatim or to serve as the source of lessons for school masters. The empire builders included Alfred the Great, Francis Drake, Robert Clive, James Wolfe, Admiral Hawke, and James Cook. Their success was due to certain shared qualities including “[i]nsight, promptitude, courage, tenacity.”126 This focus on robustly masculine soldiers and adventurers was a bit of a departure from the League of the Empire’s usual ethos. The books tied imperialism to masculinity in the strongest possible terms. However, this makes more sense when their audience is considered. In general, the historical biographies in Empire Builders were intended to provide the essential details and highlight the personal qualities of these men and to make them available to young people “at an impressionable age.” The biographical format of these lectures made them particularly accessible to very young students, a strategy that suggests the scope of the league’s educational effort. The lectures, pamphlets, and textbooks before 1914 aimed to use the formal school system to spread patriotic and imperialist values. These values included a firm sense of racial and cultural hierarchy and an emphasis on personal qualities, such as responsibility, duty, and tenacity, which had built up the Empire. The expansion of the elementary school system in 1870 and the gradual increase in the number of students studying at and beyond elementary school meant the league’s lectures and pamphlets were targeted at a wide range of stu-

Educating Imperialists

95

dents.127 The material presented students with examples of British achievements and also, in some cases, recurring problems. Perhaps the league’s self-promotion in Pollard’s book was due to the competition the league faced from other imperialist groups.128 Besides sniping from the Victoria League, the League of the Empire was faced with considerable competition from the Royal Colonial Institute, whose resources and prestige far outstripped its own. The League of the Empire’s publications showed considerable optimism in using the institutions of formal education to promote popular imperialism. The publications also helped set the scene for its most ambitious effort launched in the First World War: the Imperial Studies initiative. This was the league’s last large-scale effort to spread the ideals of popular imperialism. More ambitious in scope than its other schemes, Imperial Studies brought forth a great deal of optimism amongst its supporters. The imperial enthusiasm brought about by the war made some of the scheme’s promoters believe that the league had entered a new era. There was an awareness of the limits of previous school-based initiatives and a desire to launch a national scheme that would touch not only school children but also adults. Records of the impact of this scheme are fragmentary. However, even from the limited evidence, it is clear that the league’s ambitions were not fully realized. The high wartime hopes for Imperial Studies were emblematic of the league’s reaction to the First World War and represented its most optimistic efforts. The first reference to the Imperial Studies initiative came at a meeting held at the League of the Empire’s club house in January 1915, which was presided over by Sir Frederick Pollock. The objective of this meeting was to discuss a scheme for the study of Imperial History drawn up by the league’s History Committee. At this meeting, Pollock echoed the remarks of league figures involved in the textbook scheme. He stressed the importance of having the public, both children and adults, acquire a knowledge of imperial history. Aware of the potential suspicions, he argued that, under such a scheme, history would not be taught “as the German professors had taught their history, to the present discomfiture and degeneration of their own people.” Furthermore, the league scheme would not be “inspired by ‘Jingo’ ideals.”129 Instead, Pollock saw that an Imperial Studies scheme would help advance the British Empire and the principles on which it stood. At the same meeting, Professor Ernest Gardner echoed Pol-

96

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

lock in his belief that “the people of a great Empire must be instructed in its history and filled with a love of it.” However, he cautioned against allowing any Imperial Studies scheme to be associated with the spirit of German militarism that Britain was fighting against.130 Details of the scheme itself are sparse. A February 1915 circular letter from the league’s history committee to the universities of the United Kingdom outlined some of its basic parameters. The league wished for classes and study circles to be formed throughout the country, in which students would follow “a regular course of voluntary study and receive certificates in recognition of work accomplished.”131 References to the scheme’s finances were vague but the league wanted to be its leading organizer and contributor while accepting co-operation from all quarters. A February 1915 meeting claimed that a great number of educational institutions, including training colleges and secondary and elementary schools expressed their interest in cooperating with the league.132 The range of students, the content of the curriculum, the length of the course of study, and the format of the method of study, were all extremely ambitious. The course was intended for pupils proceeding to the history schools of universities and also those who were not. Participants were to include senior elementary school students, students in the middle and higher forms of secondary schools, first-year students in elementary training colleges, students in evening classes in schools and village institutes, and private scholars. The scheme could not be incorporated into the already crowded timetables of schools and was to be entirely voluntary. An interesting analogy was that it was to be “undertaken in the same spirit as voluntary military drill ... [and] regarded as a necessary part of the training of the patriotic citizen.” However, unlike military training, the Imperial Studies scheme was to be “incumbent on both sexes alike.”133 In total, the course was to consist of three years of study. Each year was to include a defined amount of reading, as well as debates and essays. The first year would focus on the British Dominions, the second on the Empire of India, Crown Colonies, and Dependencies. A final year would be devoted to current imperial problems including “Political Relations, Problems of Defence, Commercial Relations, Education, Emigration and Means of Communication, Economic Problems and Racial Problems.” The curriculum is worthy of some comment. To begin with, the third year of study took a critical per-

Educating Imperialists

97

spective that echoed Hankin’s textbook. The syllabus included all three of the league’s pre-1914 textbooks, suggesting a hope of further increasing their distribution. It also recommended other textbooks, including Parkman’s Pioneers of France in the New World and Stuart Reid’s Life and Letters of the First Lord Durham. Also listed were primary documents, several novels (including works by Thackeray and Henty), and poetry by Kipling and Robert Service. It was a very ambitious or even unrealistic program, especially since it was in addition to the regular school program.134 Accompanying the main part of the scheme were lectures offered at the League of the Empire Club. An example of a series of lectures connected with the scheme between 1915 and 1916 was entitled “The British Empire and its Political Relations to World Powers engaged in the war.”135 The most ambitious part of the Imperial Studies proposal was its use of locally formed study circles. These circles were to be formed in the same manner as branches of the comrades’ correspondence scheme. A leader at a school or district was to receive The Federal Magazine and other materials from the league’s headquarters. The circles were to make their own arrangements for holding meetings. Debates and discussions were to take place once a term with the subjects drawn from portions of the syllabus or recent topics of imperial interest. The leader of the circle was to keep track of work done by members and prizes were to be awarded based on students’ records of systematic study.136 In a foreword outlining the scheme, Pollard stressed that efforts at spreading imperial knowledge through books or universities alone were inadequate. Such efforts would only create “bookworms” and he rightly pointed out that only “a mere fraction of the British people go to universities, [and of those] only a fraction acquire any systematic knowledge of the Empire.”137 The organization of Imperial Studies into study circles would reach a broader audience and disseminate imperial knowledge more systematically. The Imperial Studies scheme would include adults as well as young people and aimed at cultivating a cross class appeal. While Pollard admitted that many local or voluntary associations already existed for the discussion and study of imperial matters, they lacked “co-ordination, concentration and guidance.” Consequently, much of their effort was ineffective because of an “aimless dissipation of energy.”138 The league scheme would reach a wide audience and also organize imperial discussion more systematically and effectively and would have a far-ranging

98

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

impact. Pollard felt that the “the only sound and permanent basis for an Empire lies in an instructed people.”139 The vision for Imperial Studies far outstripped the sparse resources available for it. Given the reliance on voluntary study circles, much was left to chance and few records exist of the results. An enigmatic reference by Sir Frederick Pollock in the United Empire noted that the public response to the scheme was “satisfactory ... considering [that it was] ... launched at a time of terrible Empire struggle.” He hoped that in peacetime “this work will spread and prove of real service to the Empire,” though there is no evidence that this was the case.140 The scarcity of subsequent references to the initiative in the pages of The Federal Magazine after the flurry of initial announcements in early 1915 indicated that despite the initial rhetoric, the Imperial Studies scheme did not remain a priority for the league. James Greenlee has pointed to several reasons for the scheme’s failure. To begin with, the secondary and elementary school systems were in turmoil because of the disruptions caused by the war and the freeze on education expenditure imposed by the government in 1914. Children’s spare time was not spent in extracurricular studies but in work to support the war effort. Up to 1916, 20,000 teachers volunteered for military service, and the number serving in the armed forces increased after the imposition of conscription. The positions of the departing teachers were filled by retired and married teachers, clergy, lawyers, and professional men, who were hardly able to cope with any additional educational duties.141 Greenlee also pointed to a lack of enthusiasm by boards of education and war workers for the scheme.142 Three other factors should also be considered. First, the league lacked the resources to implement such an ambitious scheme of mass public instruction in popular imperialism. Although it did not reject the co-operation of other organizations and might have been able to raise funds from the students themselves, the league would be responsible for a significant part of the scheme’s cost. The league’s annual income was £1,700 in 1913 and it is hard to imagine such limited funds financing a truly national effort. It also lacked an established nation-wide organization of local branches. A second important problem was one of internal associational culture. Regardless of the potential response of workers or boards of education, the Imperial Studies scheme was too much of a populist departure as the league lacked experience in such outreach efforts. Its largest activities involved orga-

Educating Imperialists

99

nizing schoolchildren through efforts such as comrades’ correspondence, not adults. When it catered to a mass audience such as on Empire Day, it was only for an individual event that lasted a single day. A three-year organized course of study to reach the masses outside of the formal educational system was simply beyond the league’s abilities. The League of the Empire functioned best as an organization of educators discussing the spread of popular imperialism through formal education. Some of the figures most fired up by Imperial Studies, such as Pollock and Gardner, could not by any stretch of imagination be said to have the common touch. A third factor related to the second was the complete lack of front-line elementary school teachers in leadership positions. The domination of high-level academics in the league’s leadership structure meant they could not fathom how difficult some of the assigned readings would have been for elementary school students and how unrealistic the time commitment would have been. Unsurprisingly, the campaign died a natural death and after the war the league resumed, albeit in a reduced fashion, doing what it did best, preaching popular imperialism through the usual institutional channels.

philanthropy, hospitality, and the league of the empire The League of the Empire was not primarily interested in philanthropy, civic welfare, or hospitality before 1914. Before the war, its club house in London provided hospitality for imperial visitors and had proposed hospitality for visiting teachers. At the various educational conferences sponsored by the league, efforts were made to hold receptions for visiting delegates and to entertain them.143 In addition, a social committee provided hospitality for imperial visitors and hosted private subscription dances to assist the league’s finances.144 Nevertheless, the league’s primary focus was on education. Arrangements between educational authorities, textbooks, and other publications concerned the league’s membership more than hospitality. Philanthropy and civic welfare work ranked even lower on the league prewar list of priorities and was practised in an ad hoc fashion, if at all. The First World War re-oriented the league completely. Far from neglecting philanthropic or civic welfare ventures, it embraced them wholeheartedly. Similarly, hospitality also became an important part

100

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

of its activities. As Adrian Gregory has shown, the scope of wartime philanthropy is breathtaking and it offered an important avenue for female voluntarism.145 The league’s ability to participate in philanthropic and civic welfare during the war helped to sustain it as an organization. These activities served as acceptable channels for the league’s patriotic and imperialist energies. The one major pre-1914 philanthropic venture sponsored by the League of the Empire came about almost by accident. The small island of St Helena in the South Atlantic became the object of the league’s philanthropy in 1907. The previous year, the removal of the imperial garrison had caused considerable unemployment on the island. All that kept it from semi-starvation was the cultivation and processing of New Zealand flax on a commercial scale.146 The league stepped in and helped establish the St Helena Government Lace School, which provided over one hundred and fifty island girls with employment by 1914. The league acted as agent for the school in the United Kingdom and displayed samples of the lace work in its offices.147 A number of aristocratic or political ladies involved themselves in the league’s Committee for the school, including its chair, Countess Bathurst, as well as Lady Ampthill and Mrs Lewis Harcourt.148 A sale of the school’s embroideries and lace in July 1914 raised over £100.149 Although the league probably saw the sale and promotion of St Helena lace as a way of promoting the Empire, the scheme was originally started to relieve distress. This altruism contrasted with the Primrose League’s pre-1914 efforts to provide relief for the women and children of Ulster and women working in the sweated industries, both of which had strongly partisan political ends.150 The league’s wartime philanthropic and civic welfare projects can be divided into several general categories. Some of its initiatives, including the circulation of reading materials to soldiers at the front and the production of a volume of William Shakespeare’s works for wounded soldiers, were natural extensions of its past interest in education. Other efforts, including first-aid courses, domestic philanthropy, and the provision of a buffet for returning soldiers, were more removed from its past experience, but all were important in maintaining morale and continuity. Some of the children’s activities were simple and straightforward. In 1917 ‘The All-Red Mail’ suggested painting or making small Union

Educating Imperialists

101

Jacks to sell on Empire Day, with the money going to a souvenir gift fund for blind or disabled soldiers.151 Some of the ideas were particularly feminized, such as knitting mittens, socks, or chintz bags to hold soldiers’ personal items.152 Others, such as an effort to have public school boys do munitions work, were more masculine, if idiosyncratic. The league gave considerable publicity to a scheme, launched by R.D. Beloe, the Headmaster of Bradfield College, to have boys make shell cases at the school. Lathes and machinery were procured from Vickers and the work was done in the school’s engineering shops. Despite its modest rate of production, the league praised the scheme for the “mechanical training” and “the moral benefit of helping to serve the empire” that it provided.153 The fact that Beloe was Mrs Ord Marshall’s brother no doubt added to the prominence given to this scheme. All of these efforts displayed a desire to involve children in the war effort in some capacity. They also served as a means of inculcating patriotic, imperial, and conservative values, including character and obedience. In addition, the league undertook more direct efforts with adult volunteers. They involved minimal ideological content but fit in well with prevailing notions of maternalistic philanthropy practised by middle- and upper-class Victorian women. For example, the League of the Empire organized a free buffet for soldiers and sailors arriving at London’s Waterloo Station on leave.154 Another purely practical venture was sending parcels containing socks, chintz bags, and other comforts to Irish and Russian prisoners in Germany. The league published positive feedback from captured privates in Irish units. This initiative began after the tumultuous Easter Rebellion of 1916 in which Irish Republicans fought pitched battles in the streets of Dublin against British regular troops. Those Irish prisoners receiving League of the Empire parcels had shown their imperial loyalty by resisting Sir Roger Casement’s blandishments to join the anti-British Irish Brigade155 The league also served as a conduit for the dispatch of numerous items to those at the front. Early in the war, the league opened several workrooms at its club, where it received and reshipped a large amount of clothing and comforts to troops at home and abroad, as well as to underprivileged individuals. Clothing sent included flannel pyjamas and shirts, mufflers, cholera belts, and socks. Comforts included tins of vaseline, boracic powder, cakes of soap, chocolate, cigars, and cigarettes.156 Recipients of these items

102

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

included the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, the 10th Royal Welch Fusiliers, and the Indian Horse Artillery Battery, as well as the British, French, Italian, and Belgian Red Cross, and the Serbian Relief Fund.157 A final practical wartime civic welfare initiative was instruction in first aid and nursing. From the beginning of the war, the league’s club house was used as a centre for the Westminster St John Ambulance Association and for lectures in home nursing, first-aid, sanitation, and home hygiene.158 The lectures were open to both league members and the general public and were accompanied by first aid demonstrations. Courses concluded with an exam for the St John Association certificate. In its first year of operation, 370 women were trained through this program.159 All of these initiatives existed to serve immediate needs and had only an indirect link to the League of the Empire’s stated purpose of spreading popular imperialism through education. Nevertheless, the work linked the league to the war effort and served to validate the organization in the eyes of its membership. Furthermore, the vast majority of these projects, especially those tied to nursing, food, clothing, and comforts were firmly planted in the feminine sphere and were uncontroversial among the British public. Some of the League of the Empire’s wartime philanthropy and civic welfare work was very closely linked to the league’s core mission. Its Shakespeare memorial volume and its scheme to circulate books, magazines, and “home budgets” to troops at the front are the best examples. These efforts display the league’s desire to promote popular imperialism through education under another guise. Such linkages were especially important in helping to ensure the continuity of the league during the war. The League of the Empire’s wartime edition of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare mixed popular imperialism with education, philanthropy, and civic welfare work. The league had originally decided to present each British soldier disabled in the war with a souvenir volume of Shakespeare’s works. The unexpected death of Field Marshal Earl Kitchener in June 1916 prompted the league to transform its book into a commemorative volume.160 This edition was printed in an attractive hard cover and included all of Shakespeare’s plays as well as his poems and sonnets. Each book included a note that it had been “presented under the auspices of the League of the Empire.”161 The league clearly intended it to be an heirloom and said as much in its

Educating Imperialists

103

enclosed letters of dedication.162 It was hoped that these works would help the wounded soldiers. The volume now kept in the Imperial War Museum contains a letter from Sir Sidney Lee, chairman of the league’s Kitchener souvenir committee, which states that the study of Shakespeare’s writings would increase wounded soldiers’ “interest and joy in life,” as well as their “patriotic fervour.” Furthermore, it would help perpetuate the sense of unity felt amongst the various parts of the Empire which had been amplified by the war.163 The appropriateness of the Shakespeare volume for wounded soldiers was often mentioned by league worthies. In a 1917 circular letter, Lee stressed that not only would it serve as a means of elevating and cheering the mind but as a lesson in patriotism and imperial unity.164 Lee repeated these points in a January 1917 speech at St Dunstan’s hospital for blinded soldiers. He described Shakespeare as “an apostle of sympathy with human suffering ... [who] teaches us how to bear misfortune hopefully.”165 Such words reveal a powerful belief in the healing words of literature, though they may have been cold comfort for blinded men.166 The manner in which the volumes were distributed was also intended to reinforce the healing process. They were distributed by aristocratic ladies such as Princess Louise, the Duchess of Argyll, and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein.167 Such aristocratic patronage fit well with established patterns of female philanthropy in Edwardian and Victorian Britain.168 It also fit the feminized bent of the League of the Empire by summoning up images of wounded warriors rejuvenated by works of great national literature distributed by female nurturers. One peculiar detail related to the Shakespeare project was acts of scatter-shot philanthropy that resulted from the reception of the books. The delivery of the Shakespeare volumes brought the attention of the league’s souvenir committee to wounded soldiers suffering from poverty. The committee consequently contacted families or arranged for appropriate pensions.169 In January 1917 the league created a disabled soldiers’ committee, chaired by Mrs Holman Hunt, who had spearheaded the Kitchener book scheme. This committee attempted to visit London workhouse infirmaries to help discharged soldiers who had fallen on hard times after becoming sick or disabled. By July 1917 the Government had made arrangements to give special allowances to keep ill discharged soldiers from ending up in workhouse infirmaries.170 The committee continued, under the name of

104

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the “Watch-dogs Society,” to help soldiers through the maze of government bureaucracy.171 It is difficult to ascertain exactly how widely the Shakespeare volume was distributed or how it was greeted by its recipients. In his St Dunstan’s speech, Sir Sidney Lee claimed that the league wished to present the volume to all officers and men who had suffered permanent and total disablement during the war.172 In his 1917 circular letter, Lee stated that colonels of leading regiments were forwarding lists of appropriate officers and men to the league’s committee. Lee claimed that 5,000 volumes had been ordered and called for a sum of £5,000 to defray the total cost.173 A year later, it was noted that 1,300 copies had been distributed and that further contributions to the fund were welcomed.174 No final total record of the number of volumes distributed exists in league publications or reports. However, even if the full number of volumes projected by Lee had been printed, received, and distributed, the recipients would have been an exclusive lot. An examination of the total wartime statistics from the British Army reveals that over 1.6 million officers and men of the British Army were wounded during the First World War.175 Of those, approximately 2 per cent were either permanently crippled or blinded.176 If one assumes that all 5,000 copies were distributed amongst only the most severely wounded, this still means that only a small number of disabled soldiers ever received a copy of the Shakespeare book. Whether or not the total number of volumes distributed met expectations, the league did receive some interesting feedback from individual soldiers. Paul Fussell has noted that in the First World War, belief in “the educative powers of classical and English literature,” combined with the urge for popular education, meant that it “was possible for soldiers to be not merely literate but vigorously literary.”177 Letters from appreciative soldiers receiving the Shakespeare volume illustrate the truth of Fussell’s observation. An nco of the 2nd Sherwood Foresters wrote that the book was “a valuable asset to a man who appreciates good literature, and I shall treasure it as a memorial to one under whom it was my duty and pleasure to serve.” A private of the Queen Victoria’s Rifles wrote that he would do his best to preserve his copy of the book as an heirloom for his family as requested.178 Soldiers’ perceptions of the Shakespeare volume were not exactly as the League of the Empire intended. Few soldiers seemed to gather the importance of Shakespeare as a patriot or a catalyst for imperial unity.

Educating Imperialists

105

This is not surprising. Recent literary critics have argued that due to his focus on foreign settings in many of his plays and the grave moral failings of English kings in his history plays, Shakespeare is not “a promising candidate for the role of early English nationalist.”179 It might be added that empire is even less present in the works of the Bard. These facts reveal the shortcomings of combining imperialism with a civic welfare program. When distributing a work of literature, the league assumed that its narrow interpretation of the work and the author would predominate. Unsurprisingly, this initiative never achieved the greatest hopes of its sponsors and did not long continue into the postwar period. If the Shakespeare volume was an effort to tie popular imperialism and education together under the aegis of high culture, the effort to distribute other reading materials took a different tack. The League of the Empire also tried to promote imperial loyalty and unity by circulating less elevated reading materials to wounded troops in France. These troops wanted something to remind them of home when they returned from the trenches. The items were circulated through scrapbooks called “News from Home Budgets,” which were assembled by the children of local branches. An article in the children’s publication, ‘The All-Red Mail,’ from 1916, pointed out some of the parameters of these scrapbooks. Scrapbooks were to be at least twelve pages in length and “should contain interesting bits of home news, descriptions of sports, bright sayings, short stories, verses and pictures, all cut out from newspapers and magazines, photographs, drawings and picture postcards.”180 Some of the earliest contributors to this scheme were Canadian branches of the league, which began sending “News from Home Budgets” as early as September 1914 with the full approval of the Toronto Board of Education. Toronto schools were soon sending over seventy of these scrapbooks a week to England and France. How the troops in the field regarded these items is hard to gauge. However, letters sent back to the League of the Empire were extremely positive. One Quartermaster-Sergeant claimed they were the second most appreciated item at the front after cigarettes. A note from two field ambulances noted how the “Home Budgets” were continuously handed around the hospital and used to pass the time.181 The league ran contests during the war for the best albums sent in by children and published photographs of troops happily perusing them.182 The “News from

106

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Home Budgets” echoed other initiatives by patriotic organizations such as the Primrose League’s collection of old newspapers from British commuters for re-use at the front and the Victoria League’s circulation of English newspapers back to the colonies. One common thread linking all of these efforts is their faith in newspapers and home news as a vehicle for increased imperial unity. Another common factor was the ability of ordinary members, including children, to participate in them, which helped widen the base of the patriotic leagues. A final factor, the impact of the personal links between home and battlefront is more difficult to chronicle. However, the league initiative supports recent scholarship that has pointed to a much greater degree of contact and perhaps even of shared values between war front and home front than popular mythology has admitted.183 Finally, the League of the Empire also participated in domestic philanthropy. The First World War caused considerable domestic upheaval and the league was eager to work towards alleviating it. The league decided not to launch a new campaign but to co-ordinate its efforts with existing charitable organizations. It argued that these charities were under considerable pressure due to competition with newly created wartime charities and deserved support. A list of institutions published early in February 1915 listed ten hospitals, ten army and navy charities, and seventeen institutions that were given assistance. Of these, four of the hospitals were in England and fourteen of the institutions and charities were based in England.184 In this sample, at least half of the recipients of the league’s wartime philanthropy were home-based. Some of the league’s efforts at helping soldiers, such as the depot for parcels to the front, also directed items to domestic recipients, especially the poor in the East End.185 Some evidence indicates that the war pushed the league towards combining a greater social conscience with its traditional concern with education. A summer meeting for overseas visitors hosted by the league in July 1916 included an examination of the housing for the poor at hrh Prince of Wales South London estate, as well as estates run by the London County Council and the Peabody Trust.186 This newfound emphasis had been largely absent in the league’s pre-war considerations of education but would carry into the post-1918 period. The league’s core mission, spreading the ideals of popular imperialism through education, had kept it removed from most philanthropic and civic welfare ventures in its early years of existence. During the

Educating Imperialists

107

war, it combined its traditional concern with education with civic welfare projects such as the Shakespeare memorial volume and the “News from Home Budgets.” It also engaged in philanthropic work unrelated to its past activities, ranging from the dispatch of parcels and comforts to assisting domestic charities. In all of these efforts, the league kept its membership busy and involved in the war effort. Unlike with the National Service League, there were no harsh criticisms of this work by its membership. Nevertheless, the ill fit of philanthropy and civic welfare work with the league’s usual endeavours was all too evident. The league survived the war but it would return to its previous core objectives with minimal reservations.

league of the empire and education The League of the Empire’s reputation as a nonpartisan organization interested in education prevented it from indulging in overt political propaganda in peacetime. This reputation also fit well with an emerging associational culture within wartime Britain, which rejected the partisanship of the pre-1914 era. It is true that the league’s history textbooks projected imperialist and patriotic values, as did its participation in Empire Day. However, for the most part, the league focused on education, and its propagation of patriotic values was not linked to any political party. The coming of the First World War altered this situation. It remained politically neutral but began to use its position as an educative body to lend support to the war effort. As befitted an organization with strong roots in education, the League of the Empire began to articulate how education was crucial to victory as well as to Britain’s post-war success. The league paid special attention to German education policy and compared it to British education. The league’s wartime discussions of Germany were considerably more sophisticated than the wild accusations of spying and anti-German chauvinism in publications examined by historians such as Panikos Panayi.187 It argued that British education projected the humanistic values for which Britain was fighting but also tended towards impracticality compared to the technical and scientific achievements and efficiency of Germany. A March 1915 article pointed to Germany’s rapid progress in industry and commerce after unification in 1870. Bismarck was also noted for his thorough and practical education policy which “pressed science and

108

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

education into the service of the State, thus building up a mighty and united empire.”188 However, at the 1915 Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire, Sir Harry Reichel, the vice-chancellor of the University of Wales, stressed the importance of combining freedom and education. Reichel claimed that Germany’s lack of success in the air war was due to the fact that “resource[fulness] and being able to act in a moment on his own initiative – were drilled out of the Germans by their system of education.”189 The impact of the German educational system in suppressing individuality was repeated at the league’s 1916 meeting. One speaker claimed that the German education system was governed by the fear held by German statesmen and thinkers of creating sensitive and independent soldiers unwilling to face “the horrors of war.” Consequently, German education made their soldiers into “mere machines” who lacked personality and were incapable of independent activity.190 This theme echoed British popular views on German rigidity and conformity held during and before the war.191 League members also argued that German education created a militaristic mind-set. Bishop J.E.C. Welldon claimed that German students had been taught the inevitability of “German supremacy” and the “ultimate world-wide domination of Germany.”192 However, behind all the harsh words for the debilitating effects of the German educational system, there was also some grudging respect. A notice to league members printed in 1916 noted that the cover of The Federal Magazine would cease to be printed with red dye. The red dye used was of “German origin ... [and] similar paper would not again be available until the secret of such synthetic dyes has been discovered by British manufacturers.”193 League publications during the war, which focused on hopes for Britain and British education, reveal a number of important concerns for the evolution of the League of the Empire. Economic competition with Germany, the role of organized labour, and the suitability of the current British political system were all discussed during the war. These discussions show how the league wished to promote the British cause through a measured consideration of the flaws and virtues of British education and society in general. The coming of mass democracy at the end of the war led to new insights into the role of education for the League of the Empire. The importance of working-class education was given considerable attention, as was the defence of existing institutions such as the public

Educating Imperialists

109

schools. There was also discussion of British class divisions, the modernization of the curriculum, and the reforms launched by the wartime government. In 1917 Lloyd George’s coalition government launched consultations under the new Minister of Education, H.A.L. Fisher, a noted Oxford academic and Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University. The end result was the passing of a new Education Act in 1918, which regulated children’s employment, made the universal school leaving age fourteen, and made provisions for continued education for those over fourteen.194 There was passionate discussion among the league’s membership about what the chief concerns of education should be. One frequent response was for the educational system to instill values of character and discipline into the population. In 1915 the Headmaster of the County School at Harrow praised the Boy Scout movement for teaching the “high conception of duty as citizens” and the virtues of loyalty, cheerfulness, thrift, purity, helpfulness, friendliness, obedience, honour, and courtesy. The Scouts took a version of the best aspects of a public school education “to the very centre even of the slum by a series of games, exercises and instruction.” The fundamental educational problem Britain faced was not a shortage of technical skills but of character and “its solution is the encouragement of the Scout.”195 The importance of the educational system in moulding young citizens was put forward by Lord Meath at the 1916 meeting of the league. Meath’s prescriptions were a strange amalgam of governmental re-organization and a call for a return to a traditionalist curriculum. He felt that a fundamental flaw of the British system was the lack of control held by the Minister of Education compared to his Continental counterparts. An essential reform was to invest the British minister with “large powers of control.” However, Meath simultaneously advocated a very traditional proposed curriculum that would train children how “to use brain and hand for the best interests of the State; the love of God, King and country, the sense of responsibility and of duty, and of self-sacrifice in the interests of the community ... the duty of practicing thrift and self-control in the national interest.”196 Some league members, such as the Rev. William Temple, president of the Workers’ Educational Association (wea), disagreed with such views.197 The wea was founded in 1903 by Albert Mansbridge to provide greater accessibility to higher education for the working class through the combined efforts of the trade unions, the co-operative

110

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

societies, and the University Extension movement. By 1914 it had over 11,000 members and ran 145 tutorial classes with a total of over 3,100 students.198 At the 1918 annual meeting of the league, Temple argued that educationalists should be “concerned mainly with the production of better citizens” who were not dominated by the rampant individualism set loose by the Industrial Revolution. Temple referred to the wartime interest in education and hoped that “real democracy was going to have a considerable say in the type that should be adopted.” He noted that the working class and labour were taking a leading role in the demands for educational advance. He was optimistic that labour was now turning to education as the primary means to achieve its ideals.199 Another voice decrying the existing state of affairs for working-class children was the Headmaster of a Manchester grammar school. At the 1916 annual meeting of the league, he lamented that only a quarter of a million children attended English secondary schools and that the education of most children ended at age thirteen.200 A final dissenting voice came in a rebuttal to comments made by the headmaster of Winchester at the 1915 annual meeting. In contrast to his praise of the prefect system, a league member argued that learning “a love and respect for freedom” was more important than discipline. School curriculums should be moulded to implant respect for “great humane ideals such as patriotism, justice, mercifulness and freedom.” This would be done through teaching biblical parables, patriotic literature such as Shakespeare’s “Henry V,” and historical lessons of freedom from ancient Greek historians such as Herodotus or Thucydides.201 These voices tended to be in the minority, but indicate that the League of the Empire had a diverse membership with many different ideas on the ultimate aim of education. The league’s ability to articulate a post-war vision of Britain in which patriotic indoctrination was not the primary purpose of education starkly contrasts with other patriotic organizations, as did its heterogeneous membership. One final area related to education during the war was in continuing the pre-war national efficiency concerns about modernizing the curriculum to help Britain face its post-war economic challenges.202 In his 1916 article, Bishop Welldon argued for a reconstruction of educational methods and principles that would be “partly utilitarian, partly and still more patriotic and imperial; but most of all, I hope,

Educating Imperialists

111

moral and spiritual.” Of the utmost importance would be post-war economic competition with commercial rivals such as Germany. As Welldon argued, “education in Great Britain should prepare citizens for the commercial militarism which is fully as real as the conflict of nations in arms.” Thus, the new focus of the curriculum must be on “comparatively unostentatious matters [such] as spelling and grammar” as well as geography and the art of writing a good letter.203 A more decisive call for a form of national efficiency was made in a 1916 article entitled “The Place of Ability in Efficiency.” The First World War revealed the limits of the laissez-faire state and revived calls for more efficient forms of national organization. One league member, a lecturer in education at the University of Bristol, argued for a more collectivist form of economic organization assisted by educational authorities. The key to efficiency and utility was “to do the work one is best fitted for.” To discover these needs, the author called for statistics to be published “concerning the Empire’s ... approximate future needs in all directions.” Combined with greater co-operation from parents and teachers, the state would introduce “some element of collectiveness” while leaving some scope for individualism.204 The most thorough critique of British education came from the premier of New South Wales who attended the 1918 annual meeting of the league. The Hon. W.A. Holman felt that the war had shown the failures of the British system of education.205 According to Holman, most of the vital scientific advances of the war (amongst which he included advancements in airplanes, wireless, and quick-firing anti-aircraft guns) came from outside Britain. The British educational system was excellent at turning out “leisured public men [who served as] admirable administrators,” who were forced to “muddle through” major crises without the tools required for solving critical scientific problems. Holman argued that schools and universities had “to create an atmosphere which enabled the students to understand what were the decisive factors in the world to-day.” Students should learn high and noble ideals, but also needed “the ideal of a fuller knowledge and a stronger grasp of the material problems which surround us.”206 Holman’s broadside was one of the more cutting critiques levelled at the 1918 meeting and met with some comment. The Rev. William Temple voiced the traditional position of the wea, protesting against the tendency to streamline workers into technical education.207 He argued that the chief problem Holman described was not due to a lack of scientific training

112

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

in schools but to “a habit in the public mind which had refused to apply science to the realities of life.” Sir Frederick Pollock added that “our old seats of learning were by no means as effete as a good many people thought,” pointing to the Cavendish Laboratories at Cambridge as an example. The true problem was that “the classics were taught in an obsolete fashion” and a more rational system of organization would reduce their domination of the curriculum.208 All of these educational critiques stressed the inefficiency of the existing British system and its detrimental impact on the British war effort. Some, like Bishop Welldon, foresaw Britain’s post-war economic struggle and accordingly appealed for a revised curriculum. The lecturer at Bristol argued against substantial amounts of class mobility and embraced authoritarian measures to force individuals into their proper niches. Premier Holman criticized the aristocratic and leisured focus of the existing British system. The defence put up against Holman seems to indicate that he touched a raw nerve among league members, many of whom came from the traditional background he condemned. Echoing their criticisms of educational structure for British workers, this segment of league membership was not content with the status quo. Their ability to link Britain’s wartime difficulties to the educational system showed greater powers of analysis than was evident in most of the other patriotic leagues. Despite acknowledgements that elements of the British educational system needed to be reformed, some league members remained resolutely traditional in their outlook. The fatalities suffered by public school graduates at the front were often held up as examples of the sacrifices made by the upper classes. These words of praise also had the added advantage of supporting the educational status quo. At the 1915 annual meeting of the league, the headmaster of Winchester praised the wartime patriotism of the public schools and argued that their prefect system had instilled the importance of discipline into their graduates. Consequently, the public schools sent out “thousands of young officers who were ready made and knew how to deal with their men.”209 The system outside the public schools was also praised for its ability to instill imperial and patriotic values. The chairman of the education committee of the London County Council told the 1915 annual meeting that the existing educational system had “a great deal of good in it” for being able to encourage millions of men to volunteer.210 Despite such words, surprisingly little was said in wartime discussions

Educating Imperialists

113

over the need to spread popular imperialism directly through the classroom. Bishop Welldon argued it would be necessary, “as the League of the Empire knows well, to train citizens in the spirit of the Empire” but did not suggest any new ideas as to how this would be accomplished.211 Perhaps the existing Imperial Studies program meant that comparatively little time was spent considering this goal. Perhaps the difficulties the program faced led to a realization that overt imperialist propaganda in the classroom would not work. A more diffuse type of popular imperialism that would be spread through portraying the individual contributions of the component parts of the Empire seemed better suited to the league. While this absence is notable, it is also important to see how highly the league continued to rate patriotic virtues that negated the individual in favour of obedience to the state. Wide-ranging uncertainties over working-class loyalty was spurred by the transition in Britain towards mass democracy as well as a greater degree of trade union militancy. Although the league had no definitive solutions to these questions, it was at least cognizant of them and was willing to work towards addressing them. In direct contrast to the other patriotic leagues of this study, the League of the Empire was not a wartime propaganda machine. When it discussed Germany, it did so in a critical light but also paid special attention to how education played an important part in shaping German national culture and character. Germany was presented negatively, but always with a certain grudging admiration of her efficiency. The most damning words against Britain and her system of education came when comparing her wartime performance to that of Germany. Nevertheless, the league’s diverse membership had much to say on the future of Great Britain. The membership’s comments reveal both hope and anxiety over domestic wartime political and economic reforms. Such ambivalence reveals the unsuitability of the league as a vehicle for mass propaganda. Even in wartime, the league remained far better at discussing education.

conclusion As an organization pledged to further imperial unity through education, the League of the Empire was in an awkward position during the First World War. Organizing imperial conferences and developing its

114

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

budding program of teacher exchange became impossible. The effort to launch an ambitious campaign of Imperial Studies was not well thought out and soon disappeared from the league’s activities. Nevertheless, the league survived the war for several reasons. First, the demonstrable level of imperial unity shown by the loyal response of the Empire justified much of the league’s previous work. Though it often overstated the case, the league was able to argue that its vision of imperial unity was not as far-fetched as it might have seemed before 1914. It was also able to imagine great possibilities for the post-war Empire. A second important reason lay in the league’s philanthropic and civic welfare activities, which gave it a sense of worth during the war and allowed it to mobilize its membership effectively. Some of its activities, such as the memorial Shakespeare volume and the circulation of reading materials, continued its pre-war focus on education. Others, including the distribution of clothing and material to charitable organizations, were more of a departure but still allowed the league to struggle along. The league also avoided overt propaganda and instead focused its concern over the future of Britain and the role that education would play. Wartime developments such as the expansion of the franchise and educational reform gave the league food for thought. There was internal debate over the best means to continue the league’s educational mission after the war and some pessimism over the suitability of combining democracy and empire. Combined with the failure of the Imperial Studies scheme, this meant the league had to look to less grandiose ways of promoting its ideals. The response of the Empire to the war made the league optimistic about its future. It seemed possible that it could achieve mass popular appeal and even its long-sought after goal of imperial educational federation. However, the realities of the league’s limited resources and the lack of public response to its ambitious Imperial Studies project made it more inward-looking and modest. The eventual evolution of the league towards the promotion of imperial unity through teacher exchange illustrated this second path. The league never became a truly mass movement, nor did it launch major institutional reforms in the structure of the Empire. The League of the Empire worked best at promoting the Empire through individuals and existing institutions, an approach well suited to the type of popular imperialism that would emerge after 1918.

3 A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism: The Victoria League during the First World War The Victoria League prided itself on its practical imperialism. Founded in 1901, the Victoria League’s official raison d’être was to “establish a society for knitting more closely together British subjects dwelling in different parts of the Empire.”1 While other organizations, such as the Royal Colonial Institute, promoted theory and research on the Empire, the Victoria League tried to make the Empire a factor in the daily life of Britons through its involvement in imperial education and hospitality.2 Its efforts at hospitality included providing introductions for British emigrants to the colonies and assisting imperial visitors to Britain. The league took an informal approach to imperial education, focusing on pamphlets, general lectures, and the circulation of newspapers and other reading materials. The league had only a peripheral involvement with “Imperial Studies.” Before the war, the league began to embrace a socially conscious brand of “practical imperialism” by hosting an Imperial Health Conference and sponsoring research into industrial conditions. In all, the Victoria League’s imperial activities reflected a set of beliefs that were “kinder and gentler” than the militaristic creed of the National Service League. The Victoria League faced the First World War with several distinct advantages. Its large female membership insulated it from suffering heavy wartime losses. In addition, its tradition of hospitality was immensely useful in finding practical wartime work. The huge influx of imperial soldiers into Britain created an enormous demand for hospitality. The league’s ample experience was invaluable when arranging accommodations, meals, and leisure activities. This very traditional work fell squarely into what the Victorians considered the women’s sphere. Nevertheless, hospitality work proved enormously popular. The

116

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

other aspect of the Victoria League’s work, imperial education, was also quite important during the First World War. Involvement in general lectures led to requests for lectures from interested groups of wounded soldiers. The circulation of reading materials was complicated by the war but became increasingly popular as the public clamoured for war news. The Victoria League’s imperial education effort avoided discussion of specific proposals to change the structure of the Empire. Imperial federation, tariff reform, and other past imperial controversies were not part of the safe and anodyne imperial vision of the Victoria League. One final vital wartime activity was propaganda. During the First World War the Victoria League published over twenty propaganda pamphlets on a wide variety of topics, most originally published in the first six months of the war. These pamphlets were distributed throughout Britain and the world and gave the Victoria League considerable prominence. The league pamphlets drew on a wide range of authors with different political beliefs and backgrounds. This ecumenicalism reveals the Victoria League’s relative openness compared to other patriotic leagues and helped it to avoid becoming politically isolated. The Victoria League prided itself on being a non-party organization and this characteristic would serve it well in wartime and after. The established pre-war attitudes of the league, complemented by its fortuitous choices in the First World War, would position it well for the associational culture of the post-war period. Of the three patriotic groups in this study, the Victoria League emerged from the First World War in the strongest position. However, its full story has yet to be told. Although the pre-1914 activities of the Victoria League have begun to be analyzed by historians, the wartime and post-war Victoria League has not been the subject of a detailed study.3 Yet, the First World War was a crucial period for the league. Its work in imperial education and hospitality kept it active and relevant, and it emerged from the chaos of the war able to continue its promotion of the Empire in a changed world.

the organization and personnel of the victoria league The Victoria League had a number of unique organizational characteristics. To begin with, it had a large number of women in leadership roles. In addition, it managed to achieve the non-party status to which

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

117

it was officially pledged. As its largely female leadership reached out beyond restrictive party labels, the league faced the challenges of war better than any of the other patriotic leagues in this study. The league’s ecumenical character also led it to co-operate with many other patriotic organizations, though not with groups that might jeopardize its future independence. The Victoria League’s original membership was open to men and women, though until 1907 all members of the executive committee were women. From its founding in 1901, the league made a concerted effort to keep the organization above party. Its first president, Lady Jersey, was a Conservative, its first vice-president, Lady Tweedmouth, was a Liberal and its first hon secretary, Mrs Alfred Lytellton, was a Liberal Unionist. Other leading members of the first executive committee included Conservatives such as Lady Selborne and Liberals such as Lady Crewe and Lady Emmott. The inclusive nature of its leadership and its generally noncontroversial activities allowed the league to grow and succeed. The most important wartime figures in the Victoria League were its longtime president, Lady Jersey, and its wartime deputy president, Sir Edward Cook. An assessment of their personalities and lives is essential for understanding the growth and evolution of the league. Violet Markham was another figure in the organization’s leadership who is crucial for understanding the limits to the evolution of the Victoria League during the First World War. Together, the lives of these three figures help explain the enthusiasm and growth behind the league as well as its limits as a suitable vehicle for the ambitions and hopes of some of its members. Lady Jersey (1849–1945) was quite familiar with the outreaches of the Empire. She had travelled extensively in India, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. Her husband, George Villiers, the Eighth Lord Jersey, was Queen Victoria’s godson and related to Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel. He was appointed Lord-in-Waiting by Disraeli in 1875 and was responsible for answering questions on local government in the House of Lords. In 1891 he reached the apogee of his career with his appointment as governor of New South Wales, a post he held until 1893.4 Having seen so much of the British Empire with her husband “in what was perhaps its grandest period,” Lady Jersey “easily absorbed the imperial idea.”5 Her family seat in Osterley Park, only nine miles west of London, served as a salon at which important political and literary

118

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

figures gathered, including Lord Kitchener, Joseph Chamberlain, Henry James, and Rudyard Kipling.6 Lady Jersey wrote children’s plays and numerous travel articles for the Nineteenth Century, and was involved in charitable work. Politically, she was a Conservative and a prominent opponent of Women’s Suffrage. In fact, she helped establish the Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League in 1908 and later served as its chair.7 Lady Jersey evidently believed that “any woman who deserved to influence political events succeeded in doing so.”8 Undoubtedly, her position as a leading hostess married to a member of the political elite, as well as her own abilities as a writer, helped lead her to these conclusions. All told, she had considerable experience in politics. Women’s suffrage was not discussed openly by the Victoria League, which remained true to its word and kept out of politics. It was believed that because her husband had no ministerial pretensions, her leadership would help keep the league free from party politics. Her aristocratic and political contacts enabled the Victoria League to recruit widely amongst ladies of title and wives of politicians from both the leading parties.9 Her previous committee work gave her an important advantage in chairing league meetings and her experience as a hostess helped her understand the importance of imperial hospitality. Violet Powell noted that, due to her “impeccable record as chairman,” the “fledging Victoria League ... [grew] in weight while other ... [less organized patriotic] societies evaporated.”10 The Victoria League fully shared this assessment. In 1915, after the death of her husband, Lady Jersey asked to be released from the presidency of the league. This reasonable request was denied by the league’s executive committee, which noted that for the league to be deprived during the wartime crisis “of the gracious personality which had guided and moulded its destinies since the beginning would be nothing short of disastrous.”11 Lady Jersey re-considered her decision and stayed on as president until 1927, at which point she retired and became honorary president. The other leading figure of the Victoria League was Sir Edward Cook (1857–1919), a Liberal Imperialist educated at Oxford. He is best known for his work between 1889 and 1901 as editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, Westminster Gazette, and Daily News. His career in journalism ended after his controversial defence of Lord Milner’s actions leading to the Boer War. Thereafter, he took a more scholarly direction and edited the works of Ruskin. He also wrote a biography and

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

119

a memoir.12 Near the end of his life, he published two volumes of essays reflecting on his life’s work as an editor.13 Cook would prove to be a prolific wartime pamphlet writer for the Victoria League. From June 1915 he also worked at the Official Press Bureau as a censor, an experience he wrote about in his 1920 book, The Press in War-Time.14 Cook enjoyed the practical outlook of the Victoria League. In 1907 he joined the league’s executive, where he remained the “chief moving spirit” until his death. He became chairman of the league’s organization committee in 1910, launched the War Pamphlet scheme in 1914 and became deputy president in 1917.15 He once wrote approvingly of the league’s work in giving “a friendly handshake for new settlers in the Colonies” and felt it was a well-run organization.16 He was occasionally at odds with some of the more frivolous aristocrats who supported the league. His diary in February 1914 mentioned a country weekend at which Lady Crewe, the league’s deputy president at the time, made “very clever but sarcastic” talk, calling the league “innocent ... silly & sentimental.”17 By comparison, Cook took the league quite seriously, carrying on league duties until the coming of peace. This dedication combined with his other official work and poor health eventually led to his death in 1919.18 Both Cook and Lady Jersey embodied the traditional element in the Victoria League leadership. Both helped build it up from its humble beginnings and piloted it through uncertain waters during the war. However, neither was interested in pushing the league into new directions because of the war. Neither was strongly interested in social imperialism or social issues and they remained oblivious to the social changes the war created.19 With Cook and Jersey playing leading roles in the Victoria League, it neither split over fractious debates concerning its future nor lurched violently into new directions. However, some leading members of the league, such as Violet Markham (1872–1959), equated stability with stagnation. She was the “daughter of a Midlands mine-owner, and heiress to an independent fortune.”20 Before the war, Markham dedicated her energies to the School Board and a settlement for the poor in Chesterfield. During the war, she worked with the National Relief Fund and later with the Central Committee on Women’s Training and Employment. Between the wars, she was a prominent member of the Unemployment Assistance Board. She ran unsuccessfully for Parliament in 1918 as a Liberal, but served as mayor of Chesterfield from 1927 to 1928.

120

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Markham was a Liberal Imperialist and Anti-Suffragist before the First World War. She became familiar with a number of important figures, including Lords Cromer, Roberts, and Milner, as well as Sir Robert Morant. She had been influenced by Milner’s England in Egypt (1892), which set out the case for England as a benevolent ruling power bringing “British standards of justice and integrity and good government” to subject peoples. The Boer War had a major impact on her. She travelled to South Africa shortly before the outbreak of the war and strongly supported Milner’s actions. At the time, she had strong views on racial hierarchies. She referred to the Boers as “white kaffirs” and argued that the British needed to put “the Dutch in their place.” She laid out her pro-British views in a 1900 book entitled South Africa: Past and Present, defended the British use of concentration camps against Boer women and children, and felt non-white races to be innately inferior. 21 Over time, her views on white superiority would mellow somewhat and she began to focus more on “practical” forms of imperialism and social betterment. Markham’s social concern for the poor was marked by her belief that individual voluntary action should complement the work of the state. She was a lifelong proponent of employment for women and an advocate for their rights. Her views against women’s suffrage were both ideological and practical. Ideologically, she felt that men’s superior strength gave them a natural role as “imperial protectors,” while women’s natural role was as “civilizers.” Markham believed that to take power from men’s hands and give it to a majority of women, all of whom needed male protection, was an “intolerable situation for a great nation and a great empire.”22 Practically speaking, her opposition to women’s suffrage stemmed from her disappointment over the limited use women made of the local government franchise. She was also alarmed by the violence and skeptical of the millenarian claims of the suffragette movement. During the war she changed her mind on the issue, though she did not believe that the world would be fundamentally changed through women’s suffrage.23 The Victoria League was not a major part of Violet Markham’s busy life but her contributions were important. She first became a member of the league’s executive committee in 1904 and helped move the league towards a vision of social imperialism in its pre-war days. By 1918 Markham’s tenure on the Executive Committee came to an end. As the league undertook a new scheme to retire its leadership by rota-

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

121

tion, it became Markham’s turn to step down. Although she did write to the league expressing her “continued interest” and hoped to rejoin the executive committee later, she never did.24 Her other public duties led her into different directions after the war. The Victoria League was not a suitable vehicle for a woman of her ability and energies and this was its own loss. The Victoria League was able to avoid two situations that frequently led to the terminal decline of patriotic groups. A diverse membership ensured that it was not politically isolated when the political winds shifted. A vigilant stance towards other organizations ensured that its reputation for non-partisanship was maintained and that it was never absorbed by larger or more aggressive rivals. These survival skills helped the Victoria League to emerge from the war intact and put it in a strong position to contend with the uncertainties of peace. Most patriotic organizations from the Edwardian period claimed to be non-party, but the reality was frequently different. Of the other patriotic leagues in this study, only the League of the Empire could credibly claim to be above party, largely because its leading figures were academics, often without strong partisan preferences. The Victoria League made a conscious effort to include Conservative, Liberal, and Labour figures, though not always in equal numbers. This ability to transcend the main fault lines of British politics gave the league significant breathing space when the war began to re-orient the political landscape. At her retirement in 1918, the long-serving secretary of the Victoria League, Meriel Talbot, revealed that, when the league was first formed, critics thought it “would either die a very speedy death or that it would become a clique – a party-political clique.”25 The reasons for such an accusation are obscure. Even in 1901 the chances of the league’s becoming dominated by a single party clique seemed practically nil. As early as 1905 the league asserted that it needed representation of both major political parties in its local branches.26 The league claimed that the extremely divisive general election of 1906 caused it “no disturbance.”27 Similarly, in 1913 Arthur Balfour, the former Conservative prime minister, claimed that “the absolute divorce” between the Victoria League’s work and party politics was the “very essence of its success.”28 The years immediately preceding the war brought several figures from the world of labour into the Victoria League. Two had bona fide

122

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

working-class backgrounds but were politically moderate. One was Will Crooks (1852–1921) a long-time trade union leader, member of the London County Council and Poplar Board of Guardians. As a Labour mp he represented Woolwich almost continuously from 1903 to 1921. Perhaps because of his constituency (in which Woolwich Arsenal is located) he was less afraid of being identified with an imperialist organization such as the Victoria League.29 Another more prominent labour figure in the league was Albert Mansbridge (1876–1952), the founder and (until September 1915) the general secretary of the Workers’ Educational Association, which offered university level education to working-class adults. At the annual general meeting of 1913, Mansbridge spoke with enthusiasm of the league’s growing focus on the social problems of the Empire. He pointed to how the Empire offered numerous examples of how “the great problems of democracy are being solved in ways in which they have never been solved before,” including an extremely democratic Education Act recently passed in New South Wales. To Mansbridge, knowledge of Empire and the importance of making Britain worthy of Empire would lead to social progress. If Britain had “a real conception of Empire,” it would solve some of its more glaring problems, such as squalid living conditions in industrial quarters.30 Mansbridge was so taken with the Victoria League that, in 1915, he was elected to the central executive committee along with Arthur Balfour’s sister, Betty Balfour, the educationalist Dr W.H. Hadow (1859–1937), the geographer and Liberal Unionist mp, Halford Mackinder (1861–1947), and Violet Markham.31 The politically ecumenical nature of the Victoria League was a source of much self-congratulation. At the 1915 annual meeting, it was mentioned how proud the membership was that their executive “included leading representatives of Science, The Arts, Politics and Labour.”32 This sentiment was repeated in the league’s main publication, Monthly Notes.33 In the years preceding the war, the league also made a notable effort to increase its working-class and provincial representation. In 1911 Violet Markham was sent to Newcastle, Leeds, and Sheffield to spearhead an expansion effort.34 Accordingly, branches were founded in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield, and Liverpool, and before the war calls were made to establish a capital fund of £10,000 for further expansion.35 During the war years, the Victoria League began to bring in Labour figures more openly. As will be

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

123

shown, its propaganda pamphlets mentioned those with a radical and anti-imperial past, such as Frederic Harrison, and although representatives of the Labour movement were never central to the Victoria League, an effort was made to include them. Relations with other patriotic organizations were another area where the Victoria League showed considerable acumen. The Victoria League devoted the most attention to managing its relations with the League of the Empire and the Royal Colonial Institute. The Victoria League attempted to set out the boundaries of jurisdiction in negotiations with the Royal Colonial Institute (rci) and in 1913 founded a joint committee with it to exchange views and confer on future cooperation.36 One area in which the two organizations continually overlapped was essay competitions. Conflict was avoided when the rci offered to confine itself to secondary schools and the Victoria League to elementary schools. A more contentious issue lay in the formation of new branches of the rci in areas where the Victoria League was already present. During one meeting, Sir Edward Cook requested that information regarding the rci’s future plans be sent to the Victoria League to avoid future disagreements.37 Just before the war, it was resolved that local joint committees be formed whenever new branches were created.38 Organizational conflicts continued during the war. In 1915 the Victoria League expressed concern over the rci’s intentions to form branches in all the principal towns of Great Britain.39 While the Victoria League’s scheme to offer lectures on imperial topics to soldiers drew initial praise from the rci, negative feelings came to the surface later.40 When the rci desired to expand its activities to the public schools in 1918 and proposed a deputation to the president of the Board of Education, H.A.L. Fisher, to press for greater imperial content in the curriculum, teachers on the Victoria League’s education committee feared that such a deputation “might do harm by arousing antagonism among local Educational Authorities and Teachers Associations unless very carefully handled.” Sir Edward Cook strongly urged that the two societies delimit their spheres of work to avoid antagonisms. This offer was refused by Sir Charles Lucas of the rci but the representatives agreed on the importance of promoting imperial education over the particular interests of any single society.41 One other characteristic that revealed the Victoria League’s organizational skill was its ability to limit co-operation with other or-

124

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ganizations. The league had strict rules against sharing its membership lists. In 1916 the league politely declined a gesture from the League of the Empire encouraging greater co-operation. Pre-war efforts to achieve greater harmony with the League of the Empire had always led to acrimony, so the rejection was a wise move.42 At the end of the war, the Victoria League also refused to co-operate with the League of Nations Union.43 Nevertheless, the league was willing to co-ordinate its activities through groups such as the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations.44 Still, by turning down potentially divisive offers for co-operation, the Victoria League was able to preserve its reputation for independence. As an organization, the Victoria League securely weathered the storm of the war. It could not claim to hold a mass membership but it was attempting to expand. At the annual public meeting in 1913, Lady Jersey and Earl Grey took great pride in the league’s expansion into the industrial cities of the north, the latter claiming that “No people are more eager than the manual workers of this country to learn about the Oversea Dominions of the Crown ... [they] recognise that the great Overseas Empire ... belongs to them as much as to their kinsmen overseas.”45 Before the war, the Victoria League attempted to make its own organizational structure “more democratic, in accordance with the general tendency of the day.” The executive was no longer elected by the council (which contained a more exclusive level of membership in the league), but rather by all members and associates. During the war, an additional effort was made to get new blood into the upper levels of the membership by having three executive members retire every year and by reducing the number of members needed to nominate their successors.46 Whether these organizational changes had much impact on the size of the Victoria League’s membership and on the strength of its finances is difficult to determine. Financially, the league seemed to hold its own during the war. Its involvement in new initiatives greatly increased its expenses. However, it could always rely on generous donors and overseas contributors. In 1915 a special appeal brought in over £700, including donations from the branches.47 During the war, the league received an annual grant of over £500 a year from the Rhodes Trust. It also received additional special grants of up to £200 from the Rhodes Trust to assist the league with special war projects.48 Membership numbers are difficult to calculate because the league

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

125

published central statistics infrequently. Eliza Riedi states that by 1914 the Victoria League had developed up to twenty-seven branches, which were “concentrated in the wealthier areas of England, with a cluster around London and another around the River Severn,” though there was one branch in Wales and three in Scotland.49 Membership grew to almost 4,000 in the United Kingdom within seven years of its founding, and according to Eliza Riedi to 6,500 by 1915, but that figure seems high and probably does not truly reflect the number of active members.50 It is evident that the membership of the Victoria League remained steady during the war. In 1918 the league noted that it had recorded only seventy new members and lost thirty through death.51 Local branches that submitted membership statistics to central headquarters reported in 1914 that there were approximately 2,600 members associated with twenty-two branches throughout Britain. By the last war year the branches reported a total of just over 2,700.52 Throughout the war, the amount of money received in new subscriptions usually equalled that lost through resignations and deaths.53 However, after an upsurge in revenue from ordinary members in the early part of the war, the league began to experience a decline towards pre-war figures.54 League meetings were relatively humble affairs, with just over seventy attending the annual general and council meetings but over seven hundred attending the public meeting held annually in the Guildhall.55 However, the small numbers at these meetings disguise the real strength of the league. The organization expanded the scope of its activities enormously in wartime and the activities of the league rather than its membership lists reveal its overall importance.

hospitality, philanthropy, and the victoria league during the first world war Hospitality and philanthropy were central to the Victoria League from its earliest days. Supporters always pointed to these areas when arguing that the league believed in a “sane” or “practical” imperialism that was not militaristic or acquisitive.56 Hospitality often took the form of welcoming imperial visitors to the United Kingdom or British immigrants to the Dominions. Before the war, philanthropy and civic welfare work also played an important role. The league seemed ready to embrace a vision of social imperialism that called

126

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

attention to Britain’s domestic problems and transform it into a nation worthy of ruling its Empire. To fulfill this end, the league sponsored an Imperial Health Conference in May 1914. The war vindicated these previous interests by allowing the league to practice hospitality, philanthropy, and civic welfare work on a massive scale. The Victoria League’s creation and maintenance of clubs for imperial soldiers and sailors was its largest effort. In addition, the league provided hospitality for officers’ wives and nurses and cared for the graves of imperial soldiers. All these efforts led to widespread hopes of creating a greater sense of imperial community after the war. The two areas from which the league clearly departed during the war were philanthropy to relieve domestic distress and civic welfare work. Its pre-war initiatives seemed to point in this direction and gained the support of prominent Liberal members such as Violet Markham. During the war, the league lent its resources to help existing organizations relieve domestic distress. However, it showed little interest in undertaking new work of this nature. Such restraint kept the league free from domestic political controversies and this lay at the root of its success. The league’s hospitality and philanthropic work provided practical and non-divisive activities during the war. Consequently, it had few heated internal debates over its role and future. Rudyard Kipling once referred to the Victoria League’s purpose as “the first attempt to organize sympathy” in the British Empire.57 This perhaps reflects the league’s pre-1914 initiative to provide hospitality for Britons emigrating to the outreaches of the Empire and also for imperial visitors to England. Begun in 1908 the scheme for British emigrants was called “Settlers’ Welcome.” Its intention was to “secure ... new-comer[s] a friendly welcome from someone on the spot, who is ready to give advice and information.”58 Its work fell into several categories. It maintained an information bureau for British husbands who had gone on ahead to the colonies to inquire about the arrival of their wives. It met all ships arriving from Britain to the colonies and arranged board and lodging for those without anyone to meet them. Finally, it provided settlers with a letter of introduction to be presented to the Victoria League upon arrival.59 The league could not hope to meet all Britons emigrating overseas. It depended on having potential emigrants contact it before their departure or on receiving lists of names from other patriotic and imperialist organizations.60 The

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

127

league always insisted it was not a migration agency for women settling in the Empire and that it would not find them employment or give financial help. At a conference on Settler’s Welcome in 1914, Sir Edward Cook insisted that Settler’s Welcome was well represented by male settlers of all classes and occupations ranging from accountants and clerks to blacksmiths, farm labourers, and engineers.61 What records exist indicate that over 1,700 cases were dealt with before the outbreak of the war.62 Hospitality to a wide variety of imperial visitors to England also formed an important part of the Victoria League’s work. From 1901 the league helped develop the Ladies Empire Club in London. The league provided hospitality for colonial visitors to the Imperial Conferences of 1907, 1909, and 1911 as well as for King Edward VII’s funeral and the Coronation of King George V. In its hospitality for ordinary visitors, it helped with practical matters such as supplying personal introductions and a list of reliable boarding houses.63 There were racial barriers to such offers of hospitality before 1914. As Julia Bush has shown, 1907 proposals to implement hospitality initiatives for visiting Indian students ran into harsh opposition and were ultimately rejected. In 1909 “an executive decision [was made] to ban penfriendships under the League’s auspices, between British and Eurasian children.”64 It would take the winds of the First World War to widen the Victoria League’s ideas of hospitality to include non-white members of the British Empire. The league’s most innovative work before the war linked imperialism to public health. By tying the health of the nation to the greatness of the Empire, the Victoria League tentatively expressed a form of social imperialism. “Social imperialism” is a term with a number of meanings. Hans-Ulrich Wehler has described pre-war German imperial expansion as a form of social imperialism that was of little economic value but served to divert the revolutionary potential of the lower classes and entrench those in privileged positions of power.65 In the British context, social imperialism combined paternalistic concern for the working class with support for the Empire. In Imperialism and Social Reform, Bernard Semmel notes two types of social imperialism that existed in Britain before the First World War. Social Imperialists such as Joseph Chamberlain and his mainstream followers in the Tariff Reform League emphasized the “need to maintain the Empire and ... [argued that] the welfare of the working class depend-

128

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ed upon imperial strength.” Liberal Imperialists and some less orthodox tariff reformers, such as Lord Milner and Halford MacKinder, emphasized “the condition of the working class as the basis of imperialism [and] the need for a healthy and vigorous imperial race.”66 The league’s social imperialism embraced Semmel’s second definition with one important difference. It did not share Lord Milner’s reservations over the efficacy of democracy to address the pressing problems facing Britain and the Empire.67 In addition, the league never abandoned its faith in sentiment as an important bond of Empire. The Victoria League’s social imperialism combined a desire for social improvement at home with the cultivation of a greater sense of Empire among the British people. It also avoided overt embrace of compulsory military service and training, which other social imperialists in the National Service League eagerly advocated.68 Two Victoria League social imperialist efforts were especially important. The first was small-scale and practical. In 1905 the league created the Industrial Sub-Committee to collect, compile, and publish “all the factory laws of the Self-Governing Colonies” in a handbook. Mrs H.J. Tennant chaired this committee and Violet Markham was its Honorary Secretary.69 In 1908 the sub-committee published The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions. Mrs Tennant’s preface clearly articulated a vision of social imperialism: “The great issues raised by our common industrial problems are as certainly of Imperial as they are of industrial importance, since a high standard in industrial conditions is vital to the well being of the whole Empire.” The book was to serve as a medium for the interchange of industrial statistics and comparison of industrial laws. The mother country could show the younger Dominions “by her longer and frequently bitter experience the errors to avoid.” In turn, the “daughter States can ... [help lead] the Parent State to a more hopeful and original treatment of problems which threaten alike the welfare of all.”70 The book was dryly written, with the greater part of it consisting of a compendium of all the various factory regulations and laws throughout the Empire. However, it revealed the league’s desire to make imperialism socially relevant and demonstrated the deep links between Violet Markham and strong-willed social reformers. Markham and Tennant would briefly work together during the First World War in the Women’s Section of the National Service Department. After the Second World War, Markham wrote a biography of May Tennant and spoke of “their unbroken friendship of forty years.”71

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

129

The Victoria League’s pre-war interest in social imperialism was most evident at the Imperial Health Conference that it sponsored at the Imperial Institute in May 1914, largely organized by Violet Markham.72 This conference included an imperial health exhibition with displays on child welfare, housing, and town planning that was seen by 3,000 people.73 Victoria League delegates from throughout the United Kingdom, as well as representatives from various settlements in the poorer areas of urban Britain, county, borough and district councils, and miscellaneous societies and guilds attended the conference.74 Violet Markham chaired the conference committee, which included other important league members such as Betty Balfour, Lady Emmott, and Mrs Alfred Lyttelton. The issues discussed included the amelioration of prominent Edwardian problems such as housing, child care, and child labour. Housing was a particular concern because massive overcrowding and a lack of adequate housing construction for the poor had left Britain with a large slum population.75 The conference’s session on housing stressed the need to foster imperialism through creating the proper environment. Mr Henry Vivian, jp, urged delegates to give people “a truly Imperial city to live in” and argued that the over the long term “the tenement home” would lead to “the destruction of the character of the Imperial citizen.” House construction in Britain needed to achieve a balance between private gain and the public good. 76 However, the role of the Victoria League was generally passive. It wished to ensure that the information collected at the conference would be made available for those already working with housing.77 Other sessions examined better methods for constructing workmen’s houses and model dwellings through both private and co-operative efforts. Child care and child labour were two other scourges of Edwardian Britain. The high level of child mortality was often due to a combination of factors, including poor living conditions and unstable parental income. However, Edwardians often blamed children’s deaths on the inadequate skills of working-class mothers.78 Anna Davin has examined the growing concern in Britain before 1914 to instruct working-class mothers on how to raise children fit to be members of an imperial race.79 The Victoria League followed the instructional route pointed to by Davin. If anything their advice reveals a version of domesticated imperialism that was both prescriptive and a bit condescending towards working-class mothers. The

130

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

child welfare session included suggestions for greater sex education, more training and better pay for midwives, a system of notification and inspection of births, a call for pasteurized milk in children’s diets, and a plea for working mothers not to perform industrial work before or after confinement.80 Groups such as the Co-operative Women’s Guild suggested that the maternity benefit paid under the National Insurance scheme be increased nearly seven-fold and be administered by the health authority.81 Perhaps because of the presence of government representatives at the conference, the actual resolution merely acknowledged “the lack of recognized standards” in infant hygiene and feeding to be a serious problem and requested that the governments present “take the steps necessary to procure the establishment of such standards.” Despite the passive nature of the resolution, the chairman still insisted that it did not necessarily privilege any type of machinery and that it was “not socialistic, nor anti-socialistic.”82 A related matter was child labour. Because of confused legislation until 1918, the “half-time system” in which children of school-going age could still work substantial hours remained in place. The system especially flourished in the textile areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire.83 In 1908 a survey revealed that 200,000 schoolchildren worked outside school hours. Illegal child labour such as piece work, as well as legal agricultural and domestic labour, employed large numbers of children.84 Street trading was a particular problem.85 A session at the conference on “the child as wage earner” revealed that conference participants were not united in endorsing large-scale state intervention to address these issues. Lord Robert Cecil, then a Conservative mp, admitted the need to restrict the hours of child labour and felt agricultural work had a more positive impact on children’s health and morals than factory work or street trading.86 Cecil suggested that the preferred solution to child labour was to split children’s days into sections of exclusive industrial or school work. He expressed a notably libertarian outlook, claiming, “I am rather a fanatical believer in personal liberty. I am so fanatical as to believe that liberty is very valuable in educating a child.”87 The Imperial Health Conference was a significant milestone for the Victoria League. Its members strongly believed that involvement with social issues would be a useful and important extension of its past work in “practical imperialism.”88 In his closing speech, Sir Edward Cook noted that “practically minded people ... [in] patriotic associa-

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

131

tions ... sometimes feel the lack of definite work” and remained unfulfilled, occupying their time with only patriotic songs, displays, and demonstrations. The conference “opened a new sphere in the collecting and exchanging of information – a field of truly Imperial work.” Furthermore, he called for an expansion of the Victoria League into all great towns of the United Kingdom and advocated that all branches should have an industrial committee.89 The conference was also notable for the enthusiasm and idealism it created. In his speech, Cook quoted Blake’s “Jerusalem,” a verse later associated with the Left in Britain, and called on all, whatever their politics, “to make England not only a land worth dying for, but a land, for all her children, better worth living in.”90 The Victoria League audience received these highflown words of rhetoric with loud and prolonged applause. In his diary, Cook recorded that his speech went “very well” with “great cheering” and left Violet Markham in tears.91 Such idealism had its limits. At an earlier session, a former Labour member of the London school board asked if “the Victoria League, with its great political influence, was prepared to call a Conference, which will ... discuss ... [the] means to abolish poverty and its attendant curse upon the British Empire.”92 Violet Markham replied that the central executive committee acknowledged such social questions went to “the very root of Imperial life and prosperity” but argued that such a broad request was beyond the narrow focus of the present conference.93 Cook countered that the Victoria League was engaged in important work but lacked widespread political influence.94 Once the First World War began, the league acted quickly to launch a number of philanthropic and civic welfare schemes. At a meeting held within two weeks of the British declaration of war, Mrs Alfred Lyttelton called for work that would not interfere with industries employing wage-earners and that would fit well with Victorian notions of feminine philanthropy. For example, the provision of knitted goods was believed to be one type of philanthropy that would not lead to substantial domestic unemployment. Above all, Lyttelton called for proper training for those wishing to provide help at hospitals or to the distressed. In an effort to assist, the league did compile a register of offers of help and placements needed. This registry opened at the Central Office in early August and by October had helped 350 people.95 Sir Edward Cook proposed that the league offer its services to the high commissioners and agents-general of the Dominions to help

132

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

individuals from overseas stranded in Britain as a result of the war.96 Another early suggestion included the provision of small kitbags for soldiers with toiletries enclosed.97 But the league’s most important decisions early in the war concerned extending its traditional role in the organization of imperial hospitality, by agreeing to serve as a clearing house for “non-official matters affecting the Overseas Dominions.” Following a suggestion by Lord Islington, under secretary for the colonies, the league organized a bureau of intelligence and hospitality for colonial troops coming to England.98 In addition, the league served as a receiving house for a large number of gifts contributed from British societies overseas. From 1914 to 1916 some 340 cases of clothing and hospital supplies donated by Victoria League branches and overseas members were distributed through the central office to various war funds. Supplies were donated to a number of charities also patronized by the League of the Empire, including the Red Cross Society, Church Army, Salvation Army, and the Waifs and Strays’ Society. Gifts totalling £2,500 were received and forwarded according to donors’ wishes.99 Philanthropic ventures continued throughout the war but were not the Victoria League’s main focus. In particular, philanthropy for the relief of distress in the British Isles received much less attention. Some members tried unsuccessfully to steer the league back to the principles articulated at the Imperial Health Conference. At an executive committee meeting in November 1915, Violet Markham pointed to housing problems encountered by women working in the war industries and requested that the league become “associated with this important work.” The league was equivocal on this issue, authorizing Markham only to convey an offer of undefined services to the Government.100 The housing issue then receded from view for the most part. One of the few exceptions to this trend after 1915 was the league’s request that Markham attend the annual meeting of the Garden Cities and Town Planning Association as a delegate in March 1916.101 Clearly, Markham’s view was not widely shared. The relief of domestic wartime distress was not a core activity for the Victoria League for two reasons. First, even during the Imperial Health Conference, there was not unified support from the league membership for an aggressive attack on Britain’s social ills. Social imperialism in the form of imperial philanthropy was less controversial and more acceptable. Second, philanthropy per se was not one of the league’s

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

133

specialties. The league achieved much during the war, but most of its work lay in its traditional areas of expertise and experience: imperial education and hospitality. A major investment of time, personnel, and money in its traditional areas during the war left the league with little inclination to expand into new fields. Hospitality was one of the league’s most successful endeavours during the First World War. The creation of a series of clubs for imperial soldiers and nurses took up a major portion of its energy. The work of these clubs reveals the league’s ability to respond to wartime developments and translate its imperial vision of hospitality into concrete form. By the end of 1918 over one million meals had been served to imperial soldiers and over a quarter of a million beds occupied at the Victoria League Clubs.102 Though even these impressive numbers could reach only a small minority of imperial troops in Britain, the vast size and apparent success of this hospitality operation led the league to have great hopes of a new-found sense of imperial unity. In Spring 1915 the Victoria League’s executive decided that a London club for men of the overseas forces would meet a real need, recognize the wartime sacrifices made by imperial forces, and help fulfill the league’s objectives by creating personal bonds with young men of the Dominions.103 The original plan called for a club on Regent Street with “a well-equipped Bureau of Information, rooms for writing and reading ... [and for] billiards and other games, and a buffet for light refreshments at popular prices.”104 Expenses were expected to reach £1,000 for the first year and the league wished to have all financial support for the clubs originate from within the United Kingdom.105 Field Marshal Lord Grenfell opened the first non-residential Victoria League Soldiers’ Club on 3 June 1915. By August 1915 the club committee decided to open a bedroom annex with eighty beds at Mason’s Yard, Duke Street, which was a short walk from the original club. This annex opened on 1 December 1915, charging prices ranging from two shillings per night for single rooms to eightpence for dormitory type accommodations. It proved to be popular, with over 6,500 men sleeping in the club in the first month.106 The Victoria League Club was visited by the King and Queen and with their patronage renamed “The King George and Queen Mary Victoria League Club.”107 Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden also visited the club in August 1915.108 The club’s popularity and continuing pressures from the growing numbers of Dominion troops in Great Britain led the Victoria League

134

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

to consider further expansion. An unsuccessful effort was made in May 1916 to co-ordinate the Victoria League Club with other clubs for Dominion troops run by different organizations.109 As co-operation proved impossible, the Victoria League decided to expand to a former police section house at Charing Cross Road with one hundred and fifty beds, lent to them by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The under-secretary of state for war, the Earl of Derby, opened this new facility in August 1916. It soon proved to be as popular as its predecessors and The Times praised it.110 A further effort was a nonresidential club to provide hospitality for men in the Canadian Forces Record Office, who had been moved to a new location in London and lacked proper dining facilities. Consequently, the Victoria League raised funds and acquired several rooms in the city to start a club at Hatton Garden. The Lord Mayor of London opened this club in September 1916. It proved an immediate success, serving over 16,000 meals in just six months.111 In September 1916 the Victoria League received a proposal from the high commissioner of South Africa on behalf of a Cape Town group called the South Africa Gifts and Comforts Organization Committee. This group offered to donate over £1,000 in exchange for special accommodations for South Africans at a new residential club. Such special treatment contradicted the league’s stated policy of keeping its residential clubs open to men from all Dominions and Colonies. It also went against the league’s principle of raising funds for the clubs from within the United Kingdom only. In November 1916 it was decided to give up the Regent Street club and rent new premises on Dover Street. This new building could provide sleeping accommodation for one hundred and eighty men and had rooms for billiards, writing, and dining. To meet the committee’s requests, one hundred beds at both the new Dover Street club and Charing Cross Road were designated as “South African Dormitories.” However, the Victoria League retained discretion to use the beds for men of other Dominions when they were not needed by the South Africans. In December 1916 Field Marshal hrh Duke of Connaught opened the new Dover Street Club, which proved as successful as its other counterparts.112 The Victoria League also devoted some resources to providing hospitality in the provinces. Although they did not receive the same funds or publicity as the London clubs, the league opened club houses in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Dundee.113 After their

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

135

entry into the war in April 1917, Americans were also welcomed into the Victoria League clubs. The Victoria League clubs were complemented by other hospitality initiatives, including the Overseas Reception Committee (orc). This group was formed to greet soldiers on leave from the trenches, freshly arrived at London train stations. The orc offered to guide and transport these men to whatever clubs they might prefer. This organization was the result of a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Victoria League Club and other similar London establishments, such as the Maple Leaf Club and the Peel House Club.114 From April 1916 to January 1917 the orc assisted nearly 100,000 men from all parts of the Empire.115 Several important conclusions can be drawn from the Victoria League’s wartime experience with Soldiers’ Clubs. First, the identification with King George and Queen Mary proved a wise publicity move. The British monarchy was strongly supportive of wartime philanthropy and tying hospitality for soldiers to the monarchy made good sense from a fund-raising point of view. It also helped to reinforce a sense of loyalty for soldiers of humble status, a major preoccupation of King George V, especially after the Russian Revolutions of 1917.116 Second, this type of hospitality was very expensive. The clubs employed substantial staffs, which proved a challenge for an organization used to having a fairly small overhead. For example, in 1916 the staff at the Charing Cross club numbered seven men, fourteen women, a sergeant, and three orderlies.117 Expenses were partially met by servicemen’s fees, which had brought in nearly £5,000 between 1915 and 1916.118 However, that was not enough. The Victoria League made continuous appeals to its membership and the greater public for funds to help keep the rates charged to the men steady and to help cover costs for the payment of rent, rates, repairs, and staff. An initial appeal for £1,000 in April 1915 was followed by further appeals in December 1916 for £5,000 to extend and maintain the club, and another in 1918 for £10,000, on the assumption that the club would be required for at least eighteen months until the end of the war.119 Gifts came from a variety of sources, including the league’s own membership, the general public, and other organizations such as the Boy Scouts Association.120 Other donors proved less reliable. The new location on Dover Street was based on the promise of funding from the South Africans, but a large portion of the money was later held back to pay for vouchers to

136

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

help South African troops finance their stays at the club.121 Finally, the clubs led the league to contemplate a greater sense of imperial unity after the war. The Annual Report for 1915–16 noted the feelings of a South African staying at a club who found himself on his first evening in England in the company of men representing every part of the Empire. In his words, “It thrilled one to feel that we had all been drawn to the Old Country by the same feeling. We said nothing about it, but everyone of us realized what it meant.”122 At a league meeting in 1918 the principal of Edinburgh University noted how the Victoria League Clubs created a sense of “home” for visiting imperial troops. The league’s efforts helped link Britain “more closely to her distant sons, but also to link those distant sons more closely to one another. None of us could now say how far-reaching the good effects of that might be.”123 The use of the metaphors of home and family had a powerful impact. As Stephen Heathorn has noted in discussing the metaphor of “home” in the context of national identity, this word had “a privileged status and also often explicitly connected to a sense of Englishness ... [as well as] a ‘family bond’ implying both a sense of natural order ... [and] frequently implied genealogical and historical rootedness.”124 By representing England as “home” of the Empire, the Victoria League hoped to stress both the permanency of the Empire and the naturalness of the ties linking it together. The Victoria League clubs served as a concrete manifestation of this metaphor. The league wished to channel imperial idealism into a tangible form. After the war, an Australian soldier wrote the league asking whether it would form a centre for imperial veterans who had used the clubs and returned to England as civilians. Accordingly, the league made plans to purchase a house in which several rooms could be used to carry on the traditions of the King George and Queen Mary clubs and the rest could be used for the league’s regular work.125 The league was also eager to publicize its work in providing hospitality. In 1919 it published a booklet entitled Hosts and Guests in Wartime, which outlined the efforts of the league and related organizations. It expressed a hope that “the men who fought side by side at Gallipoli or in France and in Flanders will not forget their comradeship.” Building on the wartime experience, the league desired that those who used the Soldiers’ Clubs would receive an equally warm welcome in peacetime.126 The Victoria League’s involvement in the clubs brought its brand of hospitality to a wide audience and it received a considerable amount

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

137

of feedback from both the troops and their families. Many of the letters received were from appreciative overseas women. The universal sentiment was that “anxious mothers” or wives, sisters, and sweethearts were comforted to know “how well our boys and men are being looked after in England.”127 The men themselves also sent numerous letters of thanks. A South African soldier praised the club as being “well managed, the prices reasonable.” A Canadian in Flanders wrote his thanks in 1916 and noted how “it hurts to think about” the contrast between “the excellent meals [and] cooking” received at the club and his “present daily fare.” In almost every letter, soldiers especially praised the work of women in the clubs and the “homey atmosphere” they maintained.128 Despite this widespread praise, the vast number of imperial troops in London far outnumbered available accommodations, leading some critics to assume mistakenly that no hospitality existed. There was also wartime moral panic that lonely and naïve troops from the Dominions were falling into the hands of London prostitutes. In 1917 Julia Drummond of the Canadian Red Cross Society wrote to counter criticisms over a lack of hospitality by praising a number of organizations, including “the Victoria League, so widely known for the promotion by all practical means of a truly Imperial Fellowship and friendliness.”129 As an organization with a large female membership, the Victoria League was naturally interested in providing hospitality to women. During the war, large numbers of women were travelling to Britain and were in active service as nurses. The Victoria League’s hospitality work for women closely resembled its work with the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Clubs, although it recognized that women had certain special needs. The first new initiative was launched in 1915 in response to the arrival of hundreds of overseas officers’ wives and members of the Dominion Nursing Services. Many of these women had few friends in Britain to console them during times of trouble. The Victoria League responded by helping with the creation of the Oceana Club in May 1916 in London’s Berkeley Square. This club was envisioned as a centre for overseas women in Great Britain and as the “meeting place between them and the home members.”130 It remained in operation until the opening of the Royal Club at Norfolk House in August 1917 made it superfluous. During its existence, the Oceana Club had over 400 subscribing members and a large number of honorary members,

138

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

including oversea nurses and vads (voluntary nursing assistants of the Voluntary Aid Detachment, a division of the Red Cross) who found themselves temporarily in London. It attracted the patronage of hrh Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, also a patron of the League of the Empire.131 One group of women in active service who captured the attention of the Victoria League were nurses. Early in the war, the league was in close touch with the matrons-in-chief of the Dominion Nursing Services, who provided them with a comprehensive list of all staff working or resting in England. The league then sent personalized letters of welcome to every nurse inviting them to make use of the league’s organization. Consequently, the league provided information on accommodation and travel, hosted tea parties, organized local excursions, and arranged rest periods for overworked nurses. The rest cures in bucolic rural areas resulted in fulsome praise from the nurses. One Australian nursing sister wrote to the league that her rest had “put years on my life ... The angels must have put the idea of the Victoria League into your minds, for you cannot imagine what a blessing you are to the poor tired Australians.” The matron of a Canadian hospital unit wrote thanking the league for the “hearty welcome with which we have been received.”132 One final initiative launched by the Victoria League was also a traditional women’s activity. The deaths of so many young men in the war created untold thousands of mourning women throughout the Empire.133 Early in the war, the Victoria League’s executive offered to help the Government with the care of British graves. Eventually it was decided that the league would care for the graves of any overseas soldiers who died in Britain during the war. The league’s Annual Report for 1915–16 noted that this was “a piece of work peculiarly suited to the Victoria League constitution and antecedents.”134 The league had experience in this work from the Boer War. After that conflict it had formed the Victoria League South African graves subcommittee and had worked with South Africa’s Guild of Loyal Women. The league publicized the work of the guild in finding, marking, and later caring for graves in South Africa and raising funds for the purpose in Britain. Eliza Riedi has noted that tending graves “was seen as an appropriate way for women to express their imperialism.” It also helped redirect the public memory of the war away from political mistakes and surprising British missteps and losses and towards “warrior heroes” and

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

139

“loyal women ... tenderly caring for their last resting place on earth.”135 The graves work in the First World War was similar. It involved corresponding with the families of those killed, including sending pictures of well-tended graves to the bereaved. Such attention to the emotions of those in mourning led to poignant correspondence with the league. One Canadian mother wrote thanking the league for its kindness in tending her son’s grave and sending a letter describing his funeral. She asked to become a member of the league as proof of her gratitude.136 This human element was often missing in the brusque manner in which the military usually dealt with dead soldiers’ families and offered another area in which the sentimental approach of the league was often the most appropriate.137 Although hospitality towards officers’ wives and nurses and the care of soldiers’ graves did not receive the same coverage as the soldiers’ and sailors’ clubs, this work was also significant. First, it showed the league’s appreciation of the need to cater to women’s, as well as men’s, emotional needs in wartime. Though women were not front-line combatants in the same way as male soldiers, they too were subject to overwork, loneliness, and uncertainty. The ability to make space for them as well as soldiers shows a sensitivity that was not always present in other organizations. Similarly, a recognition of the emotional struggles of the female survivors of the war dead was equally important, particularly as the war receded into the past and the cultural memory of the war was cast as the experiences of trench warfare.138 Second, the league showed a desire to cement the bonds of imperial unity through an appeal to women that differed from that to men. An England of country rests, gardens, and walks in the fresh air was to be the unifying force rather than gatherings of warriors around the fire or in the billiards room at a Soldiers’ Club. As Alison Light has noted, in the post-war period the whole conception of “Englishness” came to resemble the former vision more than the latter. In her words, Britain moved away from the “formerly heroic and officially masculine public rhetorics [sic] of national destiny ... [towards] an Englishness at once less imperial and more domestic and more private – and, in terms of pre-war standards, more ‘feminine’.”139 In its humble way, the Victoria League may have contributed to this change. Similarly, care for graves showed an England that grieved deeply for those imperial soldiers who sacrificed themselves for the home country. By offering hospitality to both men and women on their own terms, the league showed exceptional flexibility and sensitivity.

140

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

By the end of the war, the league was ready to return to its traditional hospitality activities. Despite earlier concerns about keeping them open for a prolonged period in peacetime, the various Victoria League Clubs closed down in the eight months after the Armistice. To commemorate their work, the league gave out memorial gifts to the nearly 400 women who had volunteered to help in the clubs.140 With the league’s club work concluded, it could return to previous hospitality activities such as the “Settler’s Welcome” program, which was suspended early in the war as emigration had come to a standstill. During the war, league delegates on the Empire land settlement committee insisted on the need to include women in any post-war Empire Settlement scheme.141 The league was pleased to continue its past work in providing personal introductions.142 Once the war was over, they re-started the Settler’s Welcome initiative by giving introductions for the English wives of Australian soldiers about to travel to their husbands’ homeland. Lists of all the names and addresses of soldiers’ wives were sent to the local Victoria League committees in Australia, who then welcomed them upon arrival from England. From its first revival in 1919, English wives praised the Settler’s Welcome program and wrote back that they were comforted by having personal introductions to combat loneliness in their new distant home. For their part, Australian women praised British women as “asset[s] to the colony [and] fresh links with the Homeland” and claimed Australians would help repay “in a very slight degree the wonderful hospitality shown to our men in England.”143 Settler’s Welcome continued the Victoria League’s work with hospitality into the post-war period, building on its wartime experience. The Victoria League considered its wartime involvement with hospitality, philanthropy, and civic welfare work to be appropriate, necessary, and valuable. However, hospitality clearly captured most of the league’s attention and efforts. Its main interest lay in providing hospitality to imperial visitors, soldiers, sailors, and nurses. Occasionally, the language of social imperialism did re-emerge. Certain league members from a Labour background, such as Will Crooks, mp for Woolwich, sometimes spoke of the Empire as a “remarkable family” and Britain as a “home” to all. He also noted that the “Victoria League realizes ... that the home is the back of it all – and the tenement home is as dear to the women and children in it as the castle to the aristocrat.”144 On Empire Day in 1915, there was even a clarion call that in

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

141

the post-war period, Britain “as a democratic nation” could not afford to keep its voting citizens ignorant or “tolerate social conditions in city slums, industrial centres or country places, which degrade morally and physically its voting manhood.” Therefore, Britain had to strive to achieve temperance, reduce party strife, and imbue Christian principles into the nation.145 However, these sentiments were not put into action in wartime, nor were there any concrete proposals for social measures in peacetime. Even the tentative steps taken at the Victoria League Imperial Health Conference were never acted upon during the war. This is especially notable as many of the issues, including housing, child welfare, and child labour, were exacerbated, rather than diminished by the war. The war reinforced and expanded upon the hospitality work the league had done before 1914, but philanthropy and civic welfare work were sadly absent.

the victoria league and education during the first world war Unlike the League of the Empire, the Victoria League did not have an established presence in the British educational system, did not become involved in the publication of school textbooks, and was not dominated by leading academics. It attempted to reach children through poetry contests and similar activities, but these efforts were usually organized through the league’s branches and were outside the British school system.146 Instead, the preferred method of promoting imperial education was through public lectures and the circulation of books and newspapers to the outreaches of Empire. The First World War greatly expanded possibilities for the former, while the league was able to maintain the latter. Educational work gave the Victoria League considerable prominence in British society and confirmed its predilection for spreading imperialism through popular rather than institutional measures. The Victoria League’s public lectures contrasted strongly with its propaganda pamphlets. The lectures were originally intended to follow the pamphlets’ lead in explaining the reasons for the war. Initially, emphasis was placed on educating women and the working class. As the war progressed, new opportunities for Victoria League lectures opened up in hospitals and soldiers’ camps. At first, these lectures were intended as explanatory and patriotic expositions or amusing

142

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

distractions for the wounded. But as the end of the war approached, the lectures began to discuss issues related to reconstruction as well as technical and educational topics. This evolution of audience and topics indicated the league’s responsiveness to wartime changes in British society, an important factor for the league’s survival. The league was also involved with the Imperial Studies scheme, but played a far less significant role than the League of the Empire. Before 1914 the Victoria League’s public lecture topics were usually centred on the Empire. Titles included “Vancouver Island, Its Opportunities, Homes and Scenery,” “The Necessity of the Empire and the Mother Country,” and “The Working Man in India.” Even in this early period, the focus was on reaching working-class audiences. Of sixty-seven lectures given between January and December 1913, eighteen were specifically targeted to working-class organizations, the vast majority to the Worker’s Educational Association. Of the remainder, thirteen were to public libraries or other institutions in poorer urban areas of Britain, particularly South and East London and northern Britain.147 Public lectures on the war were suggested as early as August 1914 by Sir Edward Cook, who proposed that the league should offer free lectures throughout the country “both on the war, and on the Dominions sending contingents.”148 During the early part of the war, other organizations such as the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee and the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations were set up to arrange patriotic speeches.149 Unscrupulous lecturing entrepreneurs such as Horatio Bottomley also gave patriotic talks throughout the country, though for a fee.150 The league made efforts to avoid overlapping with the work of similar organizations and consulted with leading representatives of Labour and officers of educational societies. In the earliest stages of the public lecture scheme, the league insisted that meetings have no “party-political character” and were to be held to give “a true and just presentation of the case” and not “a mere general condemnation of our foes.” Speakers were told to focus their talks on “facts, facts, facts” and to let their audience reach its own conclusions. There was also an effort to tie the lectures to the themes of Victoria League pamphlets, which were made available for distribution at meetings.151 Women and working men were key parts of the intended audience for Victoria League lectures. Women had “a special right to know about the cause for which they are cheerfully sending out their husbands and

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

143

sons and brothers.” Workers were assumed to be patriots at heart and working-class loyalty was thought to be cultivated through lectures. The league also saw lectures as a chance to increase working-class recruitment. The working man “only needs the issue explained to him carefully. Explain it to him in the common interest and let him judge where his duty lies. That may mean more recruiting now, or national service as a form of national insurance later.” Along these lines, the league felt that “A better England may rise out of this crisis considered and faced by Englishmen without respect to class distinctions.”152 In its first few months, the Victoria League lecture scheme operated as originally intended. The league’s Annual Report for 1914–15 noted that the lectures combatted the widespread public ignorance about the war in British towns and villages. Nearly 400 men and women who were longtime students of “the European situation and [the] position of [the] British Empire” came forward to offer their help to the league. From these, the Education Committee selected 245. From September 1914 to March 1915 the league organized 300 meetings, with its branches in Liverpool, Ipswich and Newcastle being especially active. At the largest meeting, held in January 1915 at the ymca’s Central Hall in London, the Colonial Secretary, Lewis Harcourt, offered a lecture entitled, “The Empire and the War,” which was later published as a Victoria League war pamphlet.153 In his lecture, Harcourt paid tribute to the loyalty of the Empire and stressed that the source of this loyalty was the “genius of the British race for selfgovernment and good government” and pointed to aspirations for “wider Imperial organization.”154 The 1914–15 Annual Report noted that the secretary of the Docker’s Union had addressed a meeting of cotton workers at Oldham, while Lord Lovat spoke to an audience of 800 working men at the Mildmay Radical Club. One female speaker addressed 400 women at the Liberal Women’s Association at Rochdale, while a female professor spoke at four meetings in Liverpool, including one where an audience of factory girls “sat spellbound for an hour and asked for more when it was over.” In lectures to all these early audiences, speakers were encouraged to use lantern slides that the league committee provided. However, some speakers, including Sir Edward Cook, “boldly broke across the ‘Vic’ tradition by having no lantern slides.” Although this departure was not completely approved of, Cook’s success showed that if the lecturers were of high quality, “the pictures are of minor importance.”155

144

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

The second year of operation saw a lessening of demand for public meetings, in part due to lighting restrictions that had come into effect.156 In total, over 120 requests for speakers were successfully filled, most being given to men’s and women’s clubs. Several innovations were launched, including an increased number of lectures for elementary schoolchildren and lectures for soldiers’ wives. One lecture was given to 450 Hampstead children on “The Empire and the War.” The league’s women speakers made special efforts to reach often remote locations “to speak to soldiers’ wives,” who greatly appreciated the opportunity “of hearing things otherwise inaccessible to them.”157 As the war went on, the Victoria League began to re-conceptualize its educational work. A June 1916 article in Monthly Notes considered the importance of post-war changes and the league’s role in educating the public about them. In the “new world” that was certain to follow the return to peace, key imperial questions included “the preparation for defence, the questions of emigration and land settlement within the Empire, the relation of the Mother Country to the Dominions, and the form of union between them.” The league believed it was critical to promote the non-partisan study of such questions and to help create “informed public opinion” to deal with them.158 The league’s participation in the Imperial Studies scheme from 1915 was an unsuccessful attempt to achieve this goal. By Imperial Studies, the Victoria League meant that “in the elementary schools, and the secondary schools, and the Universities we are anxious that the history, geography, and political conditions of the British Empire should not be overlooked.”159 It was suggested in 1915 that league branches form groups to study Lionel Curtis’s recently published work The Problem of the Commonwealth.160 Eventually, the Victoria League’s Imperial Studies efforts pursued three educational approaches. First, they became involved with the rci to form an Imperial Studies Committee, which included university academics, members of both the Victoria League and rci with “imperial experience,” and “members of local influence,” such as mayors and prominent businessmen. This committee decided to organize a series of free lectures on imperial topics to be given at newer universities and university colleges. Leading academics would be recruited to deliver the lectures and would receive five guineas and expenses per lecture. Eventually eight universities and university colleges signed on and a

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

145

total of eighty-three lectures were given between 1915 and 1916.161 A second initiative was less successful. In conjunction with other members of the Joint Imperial Studies Committee (which included the League of the Empire), the Victoria League tried to make the Empire central to all levels of education. The Committee met with H.A.L. Fisher, the president of the Board of Education, in June 1918 and presented him with a memorial that urged two specific reforms. First, “[t]hat properly endowed Chairs or Lectureships should be founded in every University to provide centres of research into the historical, political and economic problems of the life of the Empire.” Second, that “the History and Geography of the Empire should form an integral and compulsory part of the curriculum in all Training Colleges for Teachers,” except those instructing “purely technical and professional subjects.”162 Although Victoria League minutes claim that the committee was received “sympathetically” by the minister, this approach was not successful.163 While Fisher was sympathetic towards the group’s goals, he “took a rather skeptical view of the deputation’s sweeping schemes.”164 The final approach, which echoed the work of the League of the Empire, was a failure. The Victoria League envisaged organizing study groups throughout Britain to discuss a variety of imperial topics. In April 1916 the league rejected a wide-ranging plan along these lines because its finances could not cover the required expenditure.165 The league’s Empire Study committee invited several leading figures, including Sir Edward Cook, Sir Francis Younghusband, and Halford Mackinder, to draft a syllabus for imperial studies. Although they did write brief pamphlets on the topic, their effort came to naught because of financial considerations and a fear that syllabi would become rapidly outdated by wartime changes to the Empire.166 No sustained discussion of study groups or a new imperial studies syllabus appears in league publications from the latter part of the war onwards. Despite the failure of the Imperial Studies scheme, the Victoria League’s education committee continued to have optimistic plans for the post-war period. In 1919, the Committee waxed lyrical on the league’s post-war opportunity to instruct youth and “men and women of all classes ... in the direction of responsible patriotism” towards an “unbiased and disinterested” understanding of imperial problems. The committee urged “increased financial support” to fund an

146

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

“almost unlimited expansion of their work.”167 This included planning educational films and gaining control of the imperial slides of the visual instruction committee.168 Unfortunately, most of these dreams proved unattainable. The Victoria League was stretched fairly thin with its other hospitality, propaganda, and imperial education efforts. Although its resources were deeper than those of the League of the Empire, it could not fulfill a program of Imperial Studies. The biggest success for the Victoria League’s lectures did not come from a carefully organized program of imperial study, but from two of the league’s largest lecture initiatives that mixed imperial education with other topics. In 1916 the league began to offer lectures in Canadian soldiers’ camps and in 1917 in hospitals. These programs revealed different approaches. Faced with the demands of a mass audience, both led to revisions in lecture content. The lectures to Canadian troops began when the Canadian ymca approached the Victoria League for help. The soldiers “missed the clubs and debating societies to which they ... [were] accustomed at home.” In filling this need, the league believed it had found a “new piece of work” suited to its aims and objects. Accordingly, lectures were given at Canadian camps at Shorncliffe (in Kent near Folkestone), Bramshott (in Hampshire), and Witley (in Surrey). Lecture topics were mostly imperial and historical. Popular titles included “India’s Share in the War,” “European Nationality and Ideals,” “The Evolution of the German Empire,” “The Makers of Modern Italy,” and “Beneath Big Ben.” Initial feedback from the soldiers was very enthusiastic and it was hoped that these lectures would become a regular feature.169 The hospital lecture scheme began one year after the lectures to soldiers and was approved by the War Office. Financial support was given by the British Red Cross Society, the Order of St John and the Military and Red Cross Hospitals. Lecturers and information for lecture topics were provided by the Ministries of Reconstruction, Labour, and Pensions. Originally the lectures were to be organized around three main topics: general subjects (consisting of “Travels, Countries of the Empire, Historical Sights of London &c.”); “Talks on Science and on Trades”; and “Descriptions of life in the British Dominions and Colonies on lines likely to be helpful to soldiers wishing to settle overseas after the War.” The Victoria League held the mental capacity of soldiers in high regard. In a 1917 leaflet the league

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

147

quoted the director of Army Medical Services describing the planned scheme as an effort to “relieve the tedium of hospital life by more intellectual pursuits.” He added that “It is the custom to represent the British soldier as a person devoid of elevated sentiments and accustomed to murder the King’s English. Anyone who knows the soldier can have nothing but contempt for such ideas, which are so far from the truth.”170 The league strongly shared these sentiments and their application in the hospital lecture scheme helped explain its successful adjustment to the changes brought about by the war. It may also have shown the different calibre of soldier entering the British Army during the First World War. Instead of the traditional unskilled working-class recruits of the nineteenth century, the initial volunteers between 1914 and 1916 had high numbers of better-educated middleclass members, while the conscripts after 1916 drew on the entire population. The first Victoria League hospital lecture was held in April 1917 and soon the scheme was so successful that the league launched a public appeal for £500 to expand it nationwide.171 From its beginnings until the scheme was wound down in July 1919, 2,242 lectures were given by 100 Victoria League speakers in over 200 hospitals in all parts of England. Of these lectures, approximately 73 per cent were on geographical and historical topics. Of those, 44 per cent of the total lectures described allied and foreign countries and 29 per cent described the British Empire. Occupational lectures on specific technical, scientific, agricultural, and horticultural topics were popular, constituting 10 per cent of all lectures. Only 6 per cent were on the war. The remaining lectures were on miscellaneous biographical and special subjects, including reconstruction.172 Feedback from the hospital lectures was extensive. It was noted that lectures made a welcome break from the usual round of concerts that were offered as entertainment to the convalescing troops.173 One Red Cross hospital official explained that the men greatly appreciated having something to think about following the lectures.174 Books soon became a key part of the lecture scheme. The Victoria League co-operated with the Central Library for Students, which lent books without charge to soldiers, and the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, which gave a fairly substantial grant to this library.175 Demand for books was so high that appeals were made to bigger schools and colleges in the United Kingdom for loans of surplus or discarded books.176 Accord-

148

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ing to Lady Jersey, the most frequently requested works were books on “psychology, particularly the psychology of insanity” and works on “organic and inorganic chemistry.”177 Perhaps the experience of trench warfare (which included new chemical weapons, such as poison gas, and new psychological conditions, such as shell shock) made both topics of particular relevance to soldiers. As the war went on, the focus of the hospital lectures turned towards the post-war world and Empire. In 1918 a meeting of the Victoria League with representatives from the ministries of reconstruction and labour, the Workers Educational Association, the ymca, and the Adult School Union decided that party and sectional propaganda had to be avoided but that lectures on current problems should be pursued.178 Lectures on reconstruction and current problems were launched, with 70 lectures given between 1918 and 1919.179 These lectures were open to a variety of perspectives and far removed from any closed partisan world view. One league lecturer on economic matters noted the intense interest of his audience who were “clearly ... reading and thinking for themselves. They criticised our institutions with some vigour in the discussion at question time.” Far from being alarmed at this, the lecturer found “Their point of view ... [to be] independent and refreshing.”180 In June 1918 interest in a lecture on “Reconstruction” at Harpenden was so great that soldiers requested copies of the Whitley Report to read further on the topic.181 Still, imperial topics also gained strength. From 1918 to 1919 lectures on the British Empire constituted 40 per cent of all lectures given. While reconstruction was important, the league also managed to point the way to the future by stressing the potential that awaited in the Empire.182 The hospital lecture scheme was a major league commitment. Costs were kept low at just under £1 per lecture.183 The league did not hesitate to tackle potentially controversial topics such as reconstruction or “current problems.” However, it was able to promote the Empire more effectively as the end of the war neared. Imperial education had to be balanced with other concerns, but its attractiveness increased with the coming of peace. The spreading of imperial sentiment through hospitality and the circulation of books and newspapers would prove less controversial and more to the league’s liking. The circulation of books and newspapers was an educational activity that predated the war. As with the League of the Empire, the Vic-

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

149

toria League’s circulation of books and newspapers was intended to increase imperialist sentiment in two main ways. First, imperialism was to be spread through the contents of the circulated material. Second, the interaction of sender and recipient was supposed to create more personal bonds throughout the Empire. During the war, the circulation of books was suspended, but that of newspapers continued. This was fuelled by an increased demand for war news, especially with the young men of the Empire fighting overseas and inadequate coverage in local newspapers.184 Heavy emphasis was placed on the ability to read and talk over the news as a means of sharing nostalgic memories of life back in “dear Old England.”185 Correspondents from areas such as South Africa and India, which had experienced significant nationalist unrest, mentioned that the circulation of “respectable English papers” helped mould public opinion. One sentiment expressed was that “if we are to have a permanent Empire and to be a united people with common ideals, then there must be freer circulation of English periodicals.”186 In Canada, it was noted that recent American settlers in the West had to be educated “as to what our English system really is and why we show such patriotic devotion to our beloved country.”187 The cheap American literature flooding the Canadian West was “ungrammatical and ill-spelt” and led to settlers placing “Uncle Sam first [and] John Bull nowhere.”188 In 1905 The Mail and Empire noted that Canada was receiving too much American literature and thus “The minds of our people are being saturated with social and political thinking that is bad for this country.”189 The solution was to bring in more British books and newspapers to help acculturate the immigrant population to British norms. Before the First World War, the Victoria League sent out 156,000 old newspapers and 3,200 magazines a year to the Empire. The league’s efforts to secure an imperial postage subsidy in support of this scheme were unsuccessful.190 Although wartime restrictions reduced the number of newspapers sent, over 130,000 newspapers and magazines still passed yearly from the Motherland to areas throughout the Empire.191 Thus, there was a clear priority to maintaining the program in wartime. The league’s educational efforts through hospital and public lectures and the circulation of reading materials throughout the Empire showed considerable creativity and flexibility. In particular, the ability to offer a wide range of topics that clearly interested its audiences

150

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

shows that the league did not impose a pre-set vision of imperialism from above. The Empire was not the only focus of these lectures, and attention was also given to Britain’s allies, post-war reconstruction, literature, biography, and occupational subjects. This flexibility boded well for the Victoria League’s survival into the post-war period.

the victoria league and propaganda during the first world war Although the Victoria League put out several regular and special publications in peacetime, it took the First World War to put propaganda front and centre in their activities. The league’s major propaganda effort was the creation and distribution of a series of pamphlets on a wide range of topics in an effort to influence public opinion in support of the war effort. These pamphlets were especially important in the early stages of the war before the government took a hands-on role in controlling information reaching the public, but also continued after 1918, distinguishing the league from other patriotic organizations. Note also that although the content of the Victoria League pamphlets was suitably anti-German, they were written by authors with a diversity of political views. The league’s pre-1914 publications cannot be considered in the same category as the wartime propaganda pamphlets. Its major effort before the war was G.H. Hallam’s Empire Calendar, published in 1912. As its title suggests, Hallam’s work was an annotated calendar of key dates in imperial history with material that had originally appeared in the Monthly Notes. In his introduction, Hallam noted that one of the reasons for publishing the Empire Calendar was in response to schools’ requests to publish a list of dates on which they should fly the Union Jack. Hallam decided no single list would satisfy all parts of the Empire, so he published his Empire Calendar with the assumption that schools could then make the appropriate selections. Hallam wished to give prominence to the “victories” of peacetime, rather than solely military battles and heroes. He was reasonably successful in achieving his goal. The 179 dates on his calendar can be divided into five categories: military figures and achievements; geographic and scientific discoveries; constitutional and political developments; progressive reforms; and miscellaneous. The largest number of dates are devoted to constitutional and political developments, with approximately 29

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

151

per cent, followed by military at 26 per cent, miscellaneous at 21 per cent, discoveries at 15 per cent, and progressive reforms at 9 per cent.192 The selective list of dates and people on the Empire Calendar reflected the Victoria League’s vision of “sane” and nonmilitaristic imperialism. Although military accomplishments figure strongly they do not overwhelm the others. The appeal of military heroism remained strong for the Victoria League, but to a lesser degree than for other patriotic groups. The league’s wartime publications would also maintain this sense of balance. The barrage of pamphlets following the declaration of war formed a more elaborate message than the simple imperialism of the Empire Calendar. In August 1914 the Victoria League’s executive committee proposed to publish “a series of leaflets which should state the facts about the War and the issues involved, suitable for use in schools.”193 A committee appointed to supervise the writing and publication of the leaflets included Sir Edward Cook, Mrs Alfred Lyttelton, and Mr J.H.L. Ridley (president of the London Teachers’ Association). According to the league, these pamphlets were not needed to boost British morale, which was “splendid [in its] unanimity.” The official reason was to increase public knowledge, because “many people are without opportunities of hearing all the facts which preceded our declaration of War.” The target audience was expanded beyond schools to include “clergy and ministers of all denominations, working class organizations, public libraries, and clubs of all kinds, as well as ... individuals.”194 Eventually, pamphlet orders arrived from all over the United Kingdom, the British Empire, and the world. The largest imperial order came from the Department of Education in Manitoba, which ordered over 200,000 copies. By March 1915 nearly 700,000 copies were sold at cost price by the league’s central office and a further 160,000 by the publisher, Macmillan’s. In an effort to counter German efforts to influence opinion in neutral countries, the Victoria League also tried to distribute its pamphlets in Spain, Italy (before it joined the Allies), Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and South America. By March 1915, 82,000 copies had been distributed in this way.195 The publication of pamphlets proved an exceptionally popular wartime propaganda activity. Along with the Victoria League, numerous other organizations issued pamphlets on patriotic themes. The British government appointed C.F.G. Masterman as chief of the war propaganda bureau, usually referred to by the name of its headquarters,

152

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

“Wellington House.” This organization specialized in the production and distribution of literary propaganda, particularly by famous writers such as Arnold Bennett, H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, and Thomas Hardy, as well as sensationalistic pamphlets.196 An effort that began almost simultaneously with those of the Victoria League was made by the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, which worked with the Foreign Office translating and distributing propaganda literature. Within the United Kingdom, the Central Committee used the Unionist and Liberal Party organizations to help with the provision of speakers and the distribution of literature.197 The Central Committee distributed its own pamphlets and those of other groups, including the Victoria League, as well as official publications.198 Most of the Victoria League pamphlets appeared in the early part of the war. Consequently, the pamphlets were not as narrowly focused on war weariness as those of the National War Aims Committee. However, they were also less diverse than the broad ranging publications of the Central Committee. Several general themes were addressed. To begin with, the pamphlets explained or justified British participation in the war. As with articles in Monthly Notes, the Victoria League’s pamphlets profiled Britain’s allies as well as her foes. Special attention was paid to Germany’s responsibility for the war, her war crimes, and flaws in her “national character.” Naturally, the Victoria League also had a strong interest in highlighting the Empire’s commitment to the war and the depth of imperial contributions. Other works included collections of patriotic verse and accounts of the British war effort. Together these pamphlets far outnumbered similar efforts by any of the other patriotic groups in this study. They also significantly enlarged the scope of the Victoria League’s activities beyond its core functions of imperial education and hospitality. The works explaining and justifying Britain’s participation in the First World War were the most important of the Victoria League’s early pamphlets. Sir Edward Cook’s Why Britain is at War was one of the most popular, with sales eventually reaching 170,000 copies and translations made in Swedish, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Norwegian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Arabic, Rumanian, and Turkish.199 Profits from the first pamphlet were sent to the Victoria League’s War Publications Fund.200 Cook’s pamphlet was a précis of the Government’s “White Book” of diplomatic correspondence. Cook’s account sold for less than one quarter of the price of the

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

153

“White Book” (2d vs 9d) and made the official publication’s main points more “readily intelligible.” Although the league never claimed it to be an official government publication, both Prime Minister Asquith and Sir Edward Grey read Cook’s pamphlet in advance to vet it, a fact Cook wished to remain secret.201 In his pamphlet, Cook stressed that “the call of honour and self-defence, but not direct obligation” led Britain to support France, while “honour, obligation and self-defence all combined” led to British support for Belgium. The principles framing the war were presented in stark terms. Germany believed “that there is no Right, but Might,” whereas Britain hoped to save the world from “the rule of mere brute force and militarism.”202 Cook’s straightforward piece served as the source of several other Victoria League pamphlets aimed at children, including J.H.L. Ridley’s A Talk to the School Children of Britain: Why We Are Fighting. In his pamphlet, Ridley explained that the key reason for Britain’s declaration of war was Germany’s breaking of her word. Brought down to a child’s level, the case for war was very simple. Ridley concluded, “Boys and girls, you have been brought up to keep your promises ... So with all Britons, a definite promise is a very solemn thing.”203 Ridley intended this simplified version for adults as well. In large capital letters at the end of the pamphlet, he urged “take this leaflet home and read it to your parents” [sic]. Such instructions made children the vehicle as well as the audience for Victoria League propaganda. Explicit commands to junior readers were something few other patriotic leagues attempted and they reveal the league’s determination to get its message across. It might also reveal differing levels of literacy between parents and children. To be doubly sure parents were duly enlightened, Ridley produced a broadly similar version of his pamphlet for adults.204 In the early days of the war collections of patriotic poetry were another type of Victoria League pamphlet attractive to children as well as adults. In addition to Rudyard Kipling’s short poem “Big Steamers” (about Britain’s dependence on sea-borne food imports), the Victoria League published The Country’s Call: A Short Selection of Patriotic Verse. 205 Gathered by E.B. and Marie Sargant, The Country’s Call was a fairly standard collection of patriotic poems, which included works by Shakespeare as well as such perennial favourites as “Rule Britannia,” “Hearts of Oak,” and “The National Anthem.” The diversity within the United Kingdom was acknowledged with poems praising

154

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

England by Swinburne and Edmund Garett supplemented by verses such as Burns’s “Bannockburn” and Thomas Osborne Davis’s “Ireland’s Voice.” Voices of the Empire were represented by a work entitled “Australian Anthem.” Another important theme broached in early Victoria League pamphlets was Britain’s historical reputation as a defender of small nations. Sir Edward Cook was again first off the mark in this area with his pamphlet, Britain and the Small Nations: Her Principle and Her Policy. Published in 1914, Cook’s pamphlet focused on Britain’s treaty pledges in 1831 and 1839 to guarantee the independence of a neutral Belgium. It argued that international treaties needed to be respected and that small nations had “a distinctive part to play in the world.” On maintaining these principles lay the hope of “saving the world from the rule of mere brute force and militarism.”206 As before, Cook’s effort sparked a simplified version intended for children. W.J. Pincombe’s Britain and Gallant Belgium was based on Cook’s pamphlet and brought international relations down to a child’s level. Germany’s approach to Belgium was comparable to the efforts of “a great bully [to] punish a small child.” Britain thus interfered to help “the small country to which she had given her promise.” As in Ridley’s pamphlet, Pincombe included advice for children to take his piece home to their parents. He also recommended Cook’s adult pamphlet.207 Also echoing Ridley, Pincombe produced a slightly different version of his children’s pamphlet for adults.208 After the publication of the initial wave of explanatory pamphlets, additional works provided more detail and explained further developments. One of the earliest issued pamphlets, Endure and Fight, was a brief collection of excerpts that had previously appeared elsewhere and whose title refers to a quotation from the president of the French Republic in September 1914.209 Other pamphlets strove to explain the nature of Britain’s more exotic allies, Serbia, Russia, and Japan, to a domestic audience. The pamphlet outlining Serbian involvement in the war was written by the well-known historian George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876–1962). Trevelyan added to the politically ecumenical nature of the Victoria League as he was a strong Liberal favouring internationalism in foreign policy and the social and political reforms of New Liberalism.210 The most important pamphlets looked at the causes of the war, the British contribution to the war effort, and the imperial contribution to the war effort.

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

155

Sir Edward Cook’s How Britain Strove for Peace: A Record of AngloGerman Negotiations 1898–1914 examined political discussions between Germany and Britain in the years leading to the war. According to Cook, Britain’s efforts to “abate the pressure of armaments” through the Anglo-German naval discussions in 1907 and 1908 and the proposed naval holiday between 1912 to 1913 were continually blocked by Germany. Germany’s failure to match British naval reductions, co-operate with Britain to achieve a European peace, or agree not to make an unprovoked attack on Britain were stated to be among the key reasons why peace could not last.211 Once the Ottoman Empire entered the war in November 1914, Sir Edward Cook took up his pen again and wrote Britain and Turkey: The Causes of the Rupture. This pamphlet repeated the pattern of his earlier efforts and summarized the British government’s publication of the official correspondence leading to the breakdown in diplomatic relations. According to Cook, Britain wished to retain close relations with the Ottoman Empire (referred to as Turkey by Cook) and forgave much, but could not abide Turkey’s refusal to remain strictly neutral. The flight of the German warships Goeben and Breslau into Turkish waters, Turkey’s closing of the straits, Turkish favouritism towards Germany, and threats to Egypt made a rupture inevitable.212 Two other major themes in the Victoria League pamphlets were explaining the loyalty of the forces of Empire in participating in the war, as well as the perfidy of Germany. M.E. Sadler’s pamphlet, Modern Germany and the Modern World, was written in September 1914. Sadler (1861–1943) was the vice chancellor of the University of Leeds and was well-known for his work developing the extension lectures at Oxford. In his pamphlet, Sadler described Germany as “a highly educated nation” whose citizens were disciplined, obedient to their State, and full of national pride. Unlike most propagandists, Sadler pointed to Britain’s past friendship with Germany as well as its intellectual debt to German scholarship. Britain’s task was “to disentangle what is good from what is evil in the German character and national purpose.” According to Sadler, two of Germany’s greatest vices were envy (particularly of England and her accomplishments) and poor political judgment. Combined with a “grotesque subservience to fashionable theorising,” these factors led well-educated and intelligent Germans to accept pseudo-scientific theories of “Might being the supreme Right.” This lethal cocktail of emotions led Germany to misread Britain’s

156

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

character, underrate Britain’s national spirit, overrate British party divisions, and misjudge the temper of the self-governing Dominions and of India.213 As if to highlight German miscalculations on the Empire, the Victoria League published a series of pamphlets explaining and praising the Empire’s loyalty. One of the first was E.W.M. Grigg’s Why the Dominions Came In: The Power of Liberty and Law. Grigg (1879–1955), an imperially minded journalist, later to be an mp and imperial administrator, noted that the Germans assumed the fragility of the Empire and had counted on it to crumble at the onset of the war.214 The Germans had presumed that the self-governing dominions would only be nominally involved in helping Britain. Echoing a point made by the League of the Empire, Grigg noted that the Germans believed nationalist movements in South Africa and India would break out in open revolt if Britain became embroiled in a European war. The loyalty of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire was the result of “the loyalty of free citizens” to the country and the institutions that they themselves helped create.215 One of the more intriguing parts of Grigg’s pamphlet is his inclusion of India, which was not a selfgoverning dominion and whose governing principles seemed to be at odds with those preached in his pamphlet. Grigg got around this problem by claiming that India had “sprung to our side for similar reasons.” British rule had made “law prevail over lawlessness and orderly government over anarchy.”216 India was one part of the Empire that received the league’s special attention. Bhupendranath Basu’s pamphlet, Why India is Heart and Soul with Great Britain, written in September 1914, was the main Victoria League pamphlet devoted to this subject. Basu (1859–1924) was an Indian administrator and lawyer who took a favourable view of the British regime.217 He believed that Indian loyalty stemmed from the nature of the British conquest and rule of India. He constructed a vision of British rule that stressed co-operation and progress over military conquest and exploitation. Basu began by insisting that Britain did not conquer India as a foreign power, but had been invited in by quarrelling Indian states. Basu praised the ideals and principles of British rule as enunciated in the Proclamation of 1858, which he described as an Indian Magna Carta. The achievements of British rule included expanded educational facilities, systems of irrigation and railways, a common government, and freedom from outside interference.

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

157

Basu did have some criticisms of British rule. Some of the main shortcomings included the inability of Indians “to carry arms ... to enter the commissioned ranks of the Army ... [the lack of] recognition of equal citizenship in British colonies ... [and the need for] better administration of justice ... [as well as] more equitable participation in the government of the country.” However, despite such difficulties, Basu insisted on the firmness of Indian loyalty. His greatest hope was that in the future British rule would be “based on mutual understanding and confidence and heralding an era brighter and happier than any in the past – the East and the West.”218 It is significant that the Victoria League felt the need to publish a pamphlet advocating the loyalty of one specific part of the Empire. The loyalties of self-governing dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were not believed to be at risk and the league did not devote separate pamphlets to them. India was more of a question mark. Consequently, the league felt it needed to publish a justification of British rule and a reassurance of Indian loyalty. Most of the league’s pamphlets described or interpreted Britain and its allies’ involvement in the war. The remaining works offered commentary on domestic developments within Britain or were designed to spread patriotic sentiments. Clare Goslett’s To Girls in Wartime and Frederic Harrison’s The Meaning of the War: For Labour – Freedom – Country are excellent examples of the former tendency. Goslett gave advice for conduct in wartime and suggested possible contributions by girls and young women. She noted that in war, Britain was divided into two “equally valuable” armies – one military and one civil. The civil army “which is keeping up the life of the country at home” was the natural place for girls and women, and membership took several forms. First, ordinary daily business had to be performed “with extra zeal and interest.” Second, enlisted men who needed “strength of body and mind, self-control, noble aspirations, temperance [and] purity” had to be encouraged in order to face the demands of battle. These men required the support of young women and girls with a “serious, earnest attitude” and not “flippancy, frivolity, and silly flirting.” On the home front, women were asked to abstain from pleasures and luxuries and donate the money saved to the homeless and destitute. Girls were also urged to undertake appropriate training “to help the sick and wounded when an opportunity comes” and “to keep as fit as possible” as a “personal duty.”219

158

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

In Goslett’s brief pamphlet, certain attitudes were evident. Women were possible distractions for soldiers and might even lose their own moral bearings through the excitements of war. Angela Woollacott has pointed to similar wartime concerns and how they led to the regulation of female sexual morality.220 Although girls were encouraged to help those already enlisted, requests to shame the remaining men with white feathers are notably absent. Nicoletta Gullace has examined the divisive nature of this type of female patriotism.221 By not condoning this type of behaviour, the league may have been trying to avoid unnecessary controversy. Finally, Goslett’s pamphlet also wished to include women and girls in the war in ways that would not discomfort middle-class women. The evocative language used to describe female efforts (a “civil army” which was “equally valuable”) showed a sensitivity towards women’s desire to serve in the war effort and have their work recognized and validated. However, there was no suggestion that women engage in paid labour to assist the war effort. At the time of the pamphlet’s publication, there was no labour shortage, so this was unsurprising. Thus the real sacrifices of female munitions workers, which included death, tnt poisoning, and numerous injuries, are absent in Goslett’s piece. Perhaps also by absenting any mention, Goslett did not have to contemplate the possibility that the blood sacrifice of the “civil army” might require the recognition of political equality for women.222 Frederic Harrison’s The Meaning of the War: For Labour – Freedom – Country, the third pamphlet of the series to be published, was more substantial than Goslett’s effort. Harrison (1831–1923) was also the pamphlet author farthest removed from the world of organized patriotism. He was a leading advocate of positivism, a creed first voiced by Auguste Comte (1798–1857) which called for “A reorganization of life, at once, intellectual, moral and social, by faith in our common humanity.”223 Harrison had a long involvement with radical causes. He signed the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions of 1867 to 1869 asserting the legal right for trade unions to exist. He also served on the London County Council from 1889 to 1893 and called for several reformist measures, including the construction of the Kingsway. Throughout his long life, he supported parliamentary reform, republicanism, Home Rule, free trade, and antiimperialism. Although his main loyalty was to the “religion” of positivism, Harrison’s political views often allied him with the radical

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

159

wing of the Liberals and even some Labour or socialist figures. However, in addition to these progressive views, Harrison was a longtime Germanophobe, a political prejudice that dated back to his antipathy for Bismarck and Bismarckism.224 In 1914 Harrison was eighty-three years old and positivism was a dated and unorthodox belief system. Nevertheless, Harrison’s past political stands put him well to the left of most other Victoria League pamphleteers. Only Trevelyan came close to him on the political spectrum. Harrison noted that his public life had been a fight “against militarism, Imperialist aggression and international adventures.” He saw himself as part of an Old Guard who had stood for “Peace instead of Glory, for Social Progress against territorial expansion.”225 Harrison’s pamphlet offers the most left-leaning interpretation of the war found in the Victoria League pamphlet series, as well as a reformist vision of post-war Britain. Harrison stressed his past resistance to armaments and wars of aggression, but claimed the current war was an exception. The war was a conflict over civilization and would determine whether “might means right” would be the new governing principle of Europe. Harrison argued that Britain was fighting for three reasons: to maintain its “existence as a great nation,” “to do our bounden duty to our Allies,” and “to rescue Europe from submission to a despot.” Harrison dwelt on the impact of a British defeat, which he felt would be devastating because of her enormous dependence on international trade. If Britain were defeated, the standard of living for British workers would fall because of rising unemployment, expensive food, and restricted credit. Harrison also noted the importance of Anglo-French labour ties and decried placing “French and British Labour” under the servile discipline of Prussia. To avoid these fates, Harrison advised that workmen must “arm, toil, endure, fight” and be prepared for a long struggle.226 Harrison saw the aftermath of war in extremely idealistic terms. He foresaw national self-determination for the various oppressed minorities in Europe, including those in the Russian Empire. Curiously, for a pamphlet published by a popular imperialist organization, Harrison alluded to the future break-up of Empires. He noted that after the war the “near East will be freed from [the] greed of huge Empires and the Far East would become Asiatic.” Most important, the war would bring an end to militarism. The armies of Germany, Austria, Russia, and France would be reduced by international conventions and European

160

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

law. Finally, he even held hopes for the formation of a peaceful European Confederation.227 Harrison’s pamphlet was a striking departure from all the other pamphlets in the Victoria League series. Its author identified himself with the working class and pacifism in a manner unlike that of any of the other pamphlet authors. His reasons for involvement in the war were more complex than keeping treaties or protecting small nations. Harrison was more concerned with the need to avoid economic collapse and to maintain solidarity with the working people of other Allied nations. He envisioned a wide-ranging series of peacetime changes including some, such as the break-up of Empires outside Europe, that could be potentially damaging to Britain. The fact that this pamphlet was published at all indicates that the Victoria League was serious about appearing as a non-partisan organization. This pamphlet, exceptional among the Victoria League series because of the depth of its progressive views, indicates the league’s willingness to publish a broad range of viewpoints. This meant that it would be well positioned to thrive in the associational culture of the post-war period. Although there were no other works by authors as prominently on the Left as Harrison, three other league pamphlets attempted to discuss the domestic impact of the war, as well as Britain’s general contribution. An early effort was Harold Cox’s The Economic Strength of Great Britain, the shortest of the three. Two longer efforts published in 1916 and 1917 shared the same title, Britain’s Part in the War. Cox’s pamphlet was written in November 1914 after the initial economic disruption caused by the declaration of war. Cox (1859–1936) was a Liberal economist and journalist who opposed both tariff reform and New Liberalism. During the First World War, he served on the Bryce Committee investigating German atrocities in Belgium. His pamphlet portrayed Britain successfully following the maxim of “business as usual.” His pamphlet reveals the enduring strength of free trade ideas in Britain at the start of the First World War.228 He acknowledged a temporary downturn in the cotton industry, but he blamed this on foreign exchange problems. Cox’s true sympathy lay with unemployed members of the middle class, such as clerks, architects, lawyers, and writers, as well as tradespeople. However, he insisted that their suffering was cushioned by a high rate of savings. Cox argued that Britain’s economic strength could be explained by several factors: English sea power ensured an ability to carry on overseas

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

161

commerce; the economy was stimulated by increased demand for war goods; Britain had an ample reserve of labour among the unemployed, underemployed, and leisured classes to produce these goods; and Britain also had sufficient capital in its foreign investments to pay for war goods and the war loan. Finally, Cox emphasized the soundness of British government finance (“in spite of the somewhat lavish expenditure of the past few years on social reforms”) and the falling total government debt in peacetime. The Economic Strength of Great Britain presented a flattering picture of British economic performance and minimized any references to class tension or economic disruption caused by the war.229 Sir Edward Cook’s Britain’s Part in the War had a very different tone and approach and was considerably lengthier than previous league pamphlets. Written in August 1916, the pamphlet was a measured consideration of Britain’s effort after two years of wartime struggle. Faced with the lack of any stunning victories up to this point, Cook wrote in a defensive tone. He emphasized Britain’s unpreparedness for the war, the gradually growing nature of the British effort, and Britain’s behind-the-scenes contributions. Cook noted that the British public’s “habit of free criticism, and of the spirit of depreciation [sic]” had obscured the scale of the British war effort. The fighting efforts of both the Navy and the British Expeditionary Force were duly noted.230 More important is Cook’s consideration of domestic developments. Britain’s Part in the War has lengthy expositions on British production of munitions, contributions by finance and business, and women workers.231 Contrary to pamphlets lamenting Britain’s lack of work discipline, Cook’s work pointed to British strength and adaptability. Britain had five million people in the armed forces and two million making munitions, all while maintaining its export trade. Making this huge push possible was the work of British women as female doctors, nurses, vads, canteen workers, comfort-makers, and munitions workers. As a traditionalist, Cook admitted that women’s new work was “not all of it (and some might think that none of it is) work proper for women, but the spirit which, sometimes at least, is behind the work should be noted.”232 The new focus in Victoria League propaganda aimed at the home front was even more evident in the last Victoria League pamphlet printed in wartime. In January 1917 Cook and Lady Jersey edited an expanded version of Britain’s Part in the War. This version echoed

162

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

many of the same topics covered in Cook’s first effort, with chapters on the Navy, Army, aviation, munitions, and labour. The authors were experts in their fields. The chapters on munitions and labour (by Violet Markham and A.E. Zimmern) are of particular interest.233 Both revealed crucial attitudes towards the war and the working class that are important in considering the wartime developments of the Victoria League. In general, the 1917 pamphlet spoke of widespread support among the English working class for the war and an emerging sense of class unity. Specific problems addressed included conscription, the role of women in munitions production, the wartime contributions of the upper classes, general working-class attitudes, and industrial unrest. In Britain’s Part in the War, the traditional Victoria League focus on political neutrality was muted. The British public’s acceptance of conscription was offered as proof of its essential loyalty and a repudiation of German hopes. Within parliament, opponents of conscription “appeared as a miserable and motley minority.” Outside parliament, conscientious objectors were dismissed as figures “no less grotesque than contemptible.” In this way, their entire masculinity was marginalized, as historians such as Nicoletta Gullace have noted.234 Labour’s fears of industrial conscription were admitted but said to have been allayed by amendments to the legislation. Traditional interpretations of the conscription debate have focused on labour opposition.235 Revisionist historians such as Gerard De Groot have echoed the pamphlet’s line.236 As in the earlier version of Britain’s Part in the War, women munitions workers were much praised for their wartime contributions. Much was made of the co-operation between “Capital, Labour and the State,” which made the change possible. The 1917 pamphlet cited the expressed desire that the “new experience gained [and] the new spirit created ... carry forward into the reorganization of industry on peaceful lines.” How this was to be done was left unsaid, but it embraced a more corporatist approach than the works of other patriotic organizations.237 The different contributions of various classes to the war was another important theme. In keeping with the tone of the 1916 pamphlet, the 1917 edition highlighted Britain’s financial might. Britain shouldered loans to its colonies and allies and its own war expenditures included more generous pay, pensions, and separation allowances than the other combatants. Britain’s ability to borrow large amounts

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

163

while simultaneously maintaining the gold standard was partly due to British toleration of both higher income tax and an “excess profits duty.”238 The contribution of the upper class was acknowledged, but did not feature as prominently as that of the working class. The barbarous German methods of warfare made a huge impact “upon the mind of the ordinary, humane, tolerant, good-natured, easy-going British workman.” Only a “small but vociferous section” of the working class did not support the war effort. The “most active and virile” section of the working class was already fighting. The reliance on the less efficient half for industrial production led to a schism between those at home and those at war, especially over the perceived need to change work-place practices. Once more working men were drawn into the war effort, this balance was redressed. Contentious areas of labour conflict, such as charges of profiteering and arguments over dilution and labour mobility, were given much coverage. The pamphlet took a sanguine view of wartime disagreements over labour mobility and argued that, despite unpopular measures such as “leaving certificates,” the system was now working well. This optimism is at serious odds with the accounts of many historians, including Bernard Waites, who has shown the strength of working-class protest over the leaving certificate program.239 Similarly, Adrian Gregory has shown that the working class was discontented with the material sacrifices they were required to make during the war.240 Dilution was treated somewhat differently. The authors were sympathetic to the attachment of British trade unions to their hard-won rules and practices. The pamphlet insisted that the reconsideration and readjustment of the whole question of dilution in the light of wartime experience was “one of the main tasks facing the Reconstruction Committee appointed by the Government.”241 One final important theme of the 1917 pamphlet was class unity. A common cross-class effort was enunciated continually when discussing war work and explicit stress was put on the war as a unifying force. The authors of the pamphlet insisted that “Nothing has done more to unite the nation and to bridge over the gulf of suspicion and misunderstanding between the different social classes than their association in the hardships and danger of life at the Front.” It actually used the phrase, “Fellowship of the Trenches,” to describe the “new and almost holy bond of union between officers and men in their

164

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

thousands.” This echoes the observations of the war poets, which have been thoroughly studied by literary historians such as Paul Fussell.242 On the other hand, it contradicts the interpretation of more revisionist historians such as De Groot.243 The authors aspired to set the new feeling between the classes on a permanent basis, as this was vital to the position of patriotic leagues after the war. The Victoria League noted that victory would come from the efforts of all the British people, whether “rich and poor,” who have proved “themselves better than the system in which they have worked.” Since the editors of Britain’s Part in the War did not have a notable record of espousing workingclass issues, such remarks are striking. By 1917 fears of war-weariness and the impending problems of post-war reconstruction revived the Victoria League’s awareness of class issues and perhaps even the challenge of socialism. Nevertheless, the social imperialist instincts of the pre-war Victoria League remained dormant. In this final pamphlet, the league attempted a different kind of propaganda, which acknowledged some of the problems of the British system while praising the contributions of all members of British society. Though hardly revolutionary, this mixed patriotic message was not attempted in wartime by other more partisan patriotic organizations The Victoria League’s war pamphlets were its major propaganda activity during the First World War. Over twenty pamphlets were published, most of them appearing in the first six months of the war. In later stages propaganda pamphlets were seen as less important. In February 1918 the war publications committee was dissolved.244 With the formation of a ministry of information under Lord Beaverbrook in February and March 1918, the Victoria League’s efforts were no longer required.245 After that, plans were made to publish Victoria League pamphlets on the Empire for use by teachers. These pamphlets would form the core of the league’s post-war imperialist propaganda efforts.246 The Victoria League’s wartime pamphlet effort made it unique among the patriotic leagues. It gave the league significant prominence in Britain. In the earlier stage of the war, the league’s ability to publish such a wide range of pamphlets gave it a recognition and authority unmatched by the other patriotic organizations in this study. To do so while simultaneously carrying on its other manifold activities showed a formidable level of dynamism. The pamphlets’ contents also set the league apart from its counterparts. As the war went on, the

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

165

league made an effort to address some working-class concerns and acknowledged women and young girls as key wartime participants. The pamphlets addressed to children explained the war at their level and even encouraged children to share those explanations with their parents. One final aspect of the pamphlets was their wide range of authors. Amongst them, only Cook and Lady Jersey were highly placed in the league. Violet Markham, who contributed a chapter to the 1917 edition of Britain’s Part in the War was also an important member. However, the remaining authors’ diverse backgrounds showed a genuine effort to consider a wide range of opinions. Just as the League of the Empire tolerated participation by the Worker’s Education Association, the Victoria League cultivated the contributions of Frederic Harrison, George Macaulay Trevelyan, and M.E. Sadler. The league claimed to be “nonparty” and its pamphlet propaganda put this ideal into practice. Through its pamphlets, the Victoria League projected its interpretation of the war. Victoria League propaganda did not try to deceive its readers by publishing blatant misrepresentations or lies. What it did present was a view of the war that would confirm the views of an educated and patriotic person. Enemies were not completely demonized, though they were shown to stoop to barbaric practices and were clearly in the wrong. This reasonable patriotism combined with an optimistic view of domestic developments helped the Victoria League to weather the storm of war. Once peace returned, no one could accuse it of being insufficiently patriotic or, in the words of Arthur Ponsonby, of spreading “Falsehood in Wartime.”247

the victoria league’s concept of imperialism Of all the different conceptions of imperialism voiced by the patriotic organizations in this study, that of the Victoria League was best suited for the changes brought about by the First World War. As a patriotic organization long devoted to imperial education and hospitality, the league’s vision of the Empire was never tied to specific economic or political structures and institutions that might handicap it in the post-war world. The league prided itself on the practicality and nonmilitaristic nature of its imperialism. It pointed proudly to the military achievements of imperial forces in the First World War, however, it did not embrace either a militaristic view of imperialism or a wide-

166

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ranging vision of imperial reforms. Instead, the league continued to espouse a “kinder, gentler” imperialism, which it promoted through cultivating imperial sentiment and greater personal interaction. Before 1914 it was widely recognized that the Victoria League’s imperialism was non-aggressive, but was based instead on the creation of greater sympathy and understanding. At the last peacetime meeting of Victoria League in June 1914, Lord Curzon claimed that the league was attempting to achieve a “work greater than Parliaments, or armies, or fleets” in holding the Empire together. The league attempted to solve the problem of imperial unity not through laws or material forces but through sentiment. In Curzon’s understanding, sentiment was fostered through the league’s efforts to dispense hospitality to those visiting from the colonies and also to reach British subjects through books, letters, literature, and correspondence.248 The war greatly expanded the league’s activities but Curzon’s point remained essentially true. The league hoped for a greater sense of imperial unity resulting from the common sacrifices of the war but did not intend to rely on legislation, institutions, or material changes. Although never militaristic, the league understood the importance of the First World War for the Empire. Echoing other patriotic organizations, it praised Lord Roberts and the material contributions and sacrifices made by the Empire. However, it never saw martial values as more important than sentiment. As with every other patriotic organization in this study, the Victoria League brought forth words of tribute at Lord Roberts’s death in December 1914. Roberts was praised for his “courage and military capacity” in helping with the “progress and consolidation of the Empire.” His work in India was especially singled out; a key achievement was the admission of Indian soldiers to fight alongside British soldiers against the Germans.249 More interestingly, the Victoria League offered relatively limited coverage of Roberts’s death and funeral, especially compared to the other patriotic leagues in this study.250 The league rarely mentioned Roberts before or during the war. His military background and support of an issue as divisive as compulsory military service did not make him popular with its members. The league chronicled the wartime contributions of the British Empire. Echoing the League of the Empire, it published lists of the various food products and war supplies given to Britain by the mem-

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

167

ber states of the Empire.251 The crushing of the South African Rebellion in 1915 and the victory in German South West Africa were heralded as the dawn of a new age of reconciliation between Boer and Briton.252 Upon the declaration of war, the end of strife in Ireland between Unionists and Nationalists was much commended.253 Fundamental Irish loyalty to the Empire was highlighted by the failure of Sir Roger Casement to induce Irish prisoners of war to fight against England.254 Glossing over undeniable signs of Irish discontent such as the Easter Rebellion in 1916 was more problematic. For an organization based on spreading imperial sentiment, the violence across the Irish Sea, even if launched by a radicalized minority within Ireland, was embarrassing. In their regular children’s feature, “The Boys’ and Girls’ Pages,” the Victoria League attributed Irish unrest to German influence and support. Although it was admitted that Dublin was “entirely unprepared” for the rebel assault, it was much emphasized that the situation was “well in hand” within a week.255 League discussion of Indian participation in the war was both commendatory and defensive. The impressive performance of Indian troops in battle, particularly in Europe in the earlier stages of the war, aroused much positive comment.256 The Indian response gave the Victoria League the opportunity to explain the beneficence of British rule. Indians embraced British rule because of their long experience of past conquerors, as well as the “peace and prosperity” that accrued from the “pax Britannica.”257 In a similar piece in its “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages,” the league pointed to the progressive reforms enacted under British rule, including the abolition of: slavery, the burning of widows, human sacrifice, infanticide, and the bribery and corruption of officials.258 In all of these cases, presenting examples of imperial responses to the war proved more challenging for the Victoria League than writing more abstractly about imperial sentiment. Deviations from the expected loyal behaviour of the Empire were explained with reference to outside influence or the dissident actions of a minority. The league preferred to show how even in areas of disputed imperial loyalty, the First World War had led to unprecedented degrees of support. This shared imperial sentiment led it to hope for even greater strengh of the Empire in the future. The league’s praise for Canada and the self-governing Dominions, like that of the League of the Empire, was less problematic. The performance of Canadians at the Second Battle of Ypres led to much con-

168

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

gratulation.259 The league published Lieutenant General Sir Arthur Currie’s Order of the Day during the Germans’ devastating Spring 1918 offensive in May 1918. Currie spoke of how the Canadians could be counted on even as the “fate of the British Empire hangs in the balance.”260 As presented in the pages of the Monthly Notes, Canada was undilutedly loyal. It is true that Canada did not suffer internal turmoil to the degree of open revolt as did South Africa and Ireland. However, certain policies, such as conscription, over which a divisive general election was fought in 1917, barely made a ripple in Victoria League publications.261 While feeling the need to explain in a defensive tone the shortcomings of certain trouble spots of Empire, the league felt so secure in its presentation of Canada that it did not bother with such “incidental” details. The other parts of the Empire mentioned most frequently were Australia and New Zealand. Early in the war, their financial and material contributions were cited.262 The most prominent military action of the Australasian forces, the ill-fated Gallipoli expedition, was covered prominently.263 Military achievements in France were not mentioned as often. Most notable were the constant references to the active branches of the Victoria League on the home front. New Zealanders and Australians were continually cited as sending clothing, bandages and comforts to Belgian refugees, the London poor, and wounded soldiers.264 Thankful messages from New Zealanders receiving Victoria League hospitality were also quoted prominently.265 As with the Canadians, domestic dissent in Australia and New Zealand was not mentioned. The material and military contributions of these two members of the Empire stressed once again the value of the Empire to the British war effort. In addition to presenting evidence of imperial co-operation and solidarity, the Victoria League also tried to show how the war had led to high-minded hopes for the future of the Empire. In a few cases, these hopes were expressed by jarring calls for greater autonomy from various self-governing colonies. As the league did not embrace wholesale institutional reforms, such suggestions were allowed to fall by the wayside. For the most part, the imperial hopes the league saw fit to publicize depended more on a transformed outlook than on structural changes. A few isolated cases made specific calls for some institutional changes. In 1915, at the Annual Meeting, Dr W.H. Hadow, the Princi-

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

169

pal of Armstrong College, claimed that the British Empire upheld a centrifugal ideal that maintained the autonomy of its members and called for an Imperial parliament representing all parts of the Empire proportionately to discuss and solve imperial problems.266 In commenting on this idea, the Hon. W.P. Schreiner, the high commissioner for South Africa, preferred the term Imperial Council and called for greater autonomy for the various components of the Empire.267 At the same discussion, the Hon. Robert Brand, a prominent figure in British-South African affairs, spoke of Canada’s growing desire for autonomy as a result of its wartime experience. Arguing that Canada entered the war through its own volition, Brand stressed that she should in future be able to attend to her own business rather than refer questions back to Westminster. In the future, Canada would be a “great nation” perhaps as large as the United States or Britain and the old norms of Empire would no longer apply.268 In addition, the example of Asquith’s wartime coalition government was used to urge putting aside long-held differences to organize a federation of the Empire.269 This dream of imperial federation had a long pedigree and was articulated by a variety of imperialist intellectuals and statesmen. Although some imperial thinkers such as Lionel Curtis still dreamed of imperial federation during the war, such thoughts were rarely expressed by members of the Victoria League.270 It was the League of the Empire that was originally attracted to the idea of imperial federation; it had even named its publication The Federal Magazine. Imperial federation was an extremely large-scale vision of imperial reform that the Victoria League showed no stomach for. The league showed noticeably little enthusiasm for even discussing imperial reforms. In 1918 it declined a request to organize a neutral and unofficial discussion of the Montagu-Chelmsford report on the government of India. It was noted that because “public action might follow such a meeting,” it could “not be taken in the name of the League.” Instead, the league only suggested setting “competent persons to work to study and compare their conclusions.”271 All of these ideas for reform were not popular amongst the league membership. When imperial discussions left the sphere of sentiment and entered the realm of concrete constitutional change, the league became noticeably unenthusiastic. Where the league felt most comfortable was in describing changed views and attitudes towards the Empire. On the most general level,

170

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the league claimed there was improved respect for Britain from all over the Empire due to the war. A letter from a rector in a Canadian parish in 1916 noted that his countrymen had previously judged the English based on “the poor specimens” who emigrated to Canada. The war had impressed Canadians with news of “the open-hearted kindness and generosity of the English.”272 Another passage pointed to how the Victoria League was struggling towards a new vision in which the British Empire truly saw itself as a “community of nations” that also managed to maintain the individuality of its members.273 At a meeting of the league in Newcastle, a speaker noted the uniqueness of the British Empire compared to past empires in history. According to him, the British Empire did not grow from deliberate military expansion but instinctively. Furthermore, the Empire maintained the supremacy of the civilian ideal as well as a belief in justice.274 A 1915 article in the Monthly Notes claimed that Empire Day had been given a new meaning by the war. After the predicted collapse of the German Empire, Britain would hold the dominant imperial position in the world. Consequently, Britain needed to emphasize that she held the Empire “as a trust for the good of mankind, and not for merely selfish ends.” This demanded “national self-restraint and humility of spirit; fundamental honesty and sincerity of national purpose; strength of national character; [and] elevation of the national ideal.”275 The Victoria League set out to encourage this type of imperial enthusiasm by supporting celebrations that did not fundamentally challenge any imperial structures. In a similar light, throughout the war, the league placed a large wreath at the foot of Queen Victoria’s statue outside Buckingham Palace every Empire Day.276 These morale-building exercises and laudatory rhetoric best suited the league. Any talk of reforms disrupted its reputation for non-partisanship. The best expression of the league’s support for the Empire was in its efforts at hospitality or propaganda, rather than debating specific and complex imperial reforms. By the end of the war, the Victoria League had articulated a vision of imperial sacrifice and future greatness without embracing any specific program of imperial reform. In her first message to branches throughout the Empire after the Armistice, Lady Jersey claimed that the Empire stood “on the threshold of a new era” and that the “[c]ommon sacrifice, common suffering [and] common service [of the war], crowned by common victory, should have fruition in closer

A Kinder and Gentler Imperialism

171

union, in better understanding, [and] in deeper sympathy.”277 However, no suggestions were offered to explain how closer imperial union would emerge or how the Empire might change as a result of the war. The Victoria League continued to see its imperial mission as creating “better understanding” and “deeper sympathy” among the peoples of the Empire through hospitality and imperial education. At a meeting in July 1918 Lady Jersey noted that she conceived of the Victoria League as being “a sort of maid-of-all-work for the Empire, because wherever we have seen a little job to be done we have tried to do it to the best of our ability.”278 Although this type of imperial activity was neither heroic nor grandiose, it was what the Victoria League did best. The league would find that such a purposely scaled back imperial mission would suit the tenor of the post-war period.

conclusion Before the First World War, the Victoria League defined itself as an organization devoted to “practical imperialism” and “sane patriotism.” It saw its principal task as the “organization of sympathy” throughout the Empire and for most of the time devoted itself to fairly innocuous tasks. The First World War changed the situation dramatically. The league’s previously unheralded efforts at hospitality proved to be of enormous importance in coping with the deluge of imperial soldiers descending on England. Its propaganda pamphlets and popular lecture schemes put it in touch with more members of the British public than any of the other patriotic groups in this study. Its circulation of newspapers and books continued to be appreciated throughout the Empire. However, the most potentially dynamic aspect of its pre-war program, its social imperialism initiative, was discarded. This development may simply have been the result of an overcrowded agenda. The league could not be all things to all people. Furthermore, a multitude of other patriotic and imperialist organizations in wartime Britain could have taken up this cause. However, this wartime reorientation was no accident. The secret of the league’s success was its ability to practise a “kinder, gentler” imperialism, which was noncontroversial and accepted by most parties. The propaganda pamphlets might, at first, seem a partial exception to this rule. However, even these pamphlets were generally non-divisive, except in portraying Britain’s actual foes in the war. Furthermore, the pamphlets had a

172

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

diversity of authors with varying political views. The league’s natural reaction was to avoid controversy and keep its imperialism centred on sentiment. An imperialism based on sentiment might be criticized for producing nothing concrete. Organized sympathy cannot leave a legacy of detailed legislative proposals, imperial parliaments, or schemes of imperial federation. However, this type of imperialism left behind something equally valuable. It made the Victoria League the most flexible of all the patriotic organizations in this study in facing the post-war world. Its imperialism may well have been highly sentimental, but the league did not find itself engaged in soul-searching with the coming of the Armistice. Although it evolved to meet new challenges, including efforts at Empire settlement and Empire shopping, it would continue to foster imperial ties, strengthened by its wartime experience.

4 The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?: The Victoria League and the League of the Empire in the 1920s Patriotic and imperialist leagues found themselves in a peculiar situation after the First World War. Britain’s empire had expanded to its maximum size and, contrary to the predictions of anti-Imperialists, had not cracked apart under the strain of war. Despite these wartime triumphs, British popular imperialism in the 1920s could not merely repeat the imperial slogans of the pre-war world. Although the Conservatives, the traditional party of empire, dominated inter-war politics, the post-war environment was too complex for a simple imperialist triumphalism to succeed. To begin with, Britain had justified its wartime effort fighting Prussian militarism. In addition, the 1920s were a time of enormous change for Britain. The quadrupling of the electorate between 1918 and 1928, labour unrest, and the emergence of the Labour Party as a contender for government created a very different environment for patriotic leagues. In such a period, traditional imperialist appeals based on military and national glory were doomed to failure. Patriotic leagues with large female memberships, such as the Victoria League and the League of the Empire, succeeded by crafting a domesticated imperial message that emphasized sentimental ties, education, and hospitality. Of the two organizations, the Victoria League was the more successful. It had a wide-ranging program that encouraged Empire Settlement, book and newspaper exchanges, and imperial lectures. After the failure of the Imperial Studies project, the League of the Empire concentrated almost exclusively on education, especially its program of exchanging teachers between Britain and the Empire. Both leagues took into account the changed environment after 1918. Discussions

174

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

of the militaristic implications of the Empire were avoided. The Victoria League reached out to the Labour Party to maintain its reputation for non-partisanship. The League of the Empire acquired a new interest in the education of underprivileged children. Both organizations had some difficulty modernizing to fit the new mass culture of the “Jazz Age,” but they gradually adjusted to the aftermath of the war with a gentle brand of domesticated imperialism. Successful organizations supporting the British Empire were full of ordinary British women who articulated a domesticated imperialism well suited to post-war Britain. Alison Light, a literary historian, has pointed to a “domestification of the imperial idea between the wars” as well as a “new kind of Englishness” that feminized the idea of the nation. While her image of the British nation as a “private and retiring people ... a nation of gardeners and housewives” is certainly an overstatement, it does hold an element of truth.1 The less divisive imperial visions of the Victoria League and the League of the Empire suited the mood of the period. Neither organization held as prominent a place in post-war Britain as they had before. However, both survived the war intact and found a special niche for themselves supporting the Empire. It was fortuitous that each organization had past traditions, established outlooks, and activities that would be well suited to the associational culture of post-war Britain.

personnel, organization, and politics after the first world war Both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire adapted to these challenges and found their new strength through continuing their past traditions. New figures entered into leadership positions, various means were used to raise sufficient income and both remained politically non-partisan to weather the shocks of the postwar period. By the end of the 1920s, the leagues were even considering whether to undertake another attempt at a merger. While the Victoria League and the League of the Empire were not dominant forces in post-war British society, they did not disappear. In the interwar period, the Victoria League faced a greater turnover in personnel than the League of the Empire. Exhausted by his wartime service as the league’s deputy president and the guiding force behind its war pamphlets, Sir Edward Cook retired from the

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

175

league soon after the war and died in 1919. His loss was felt in the interwar period and he was eulogised as a Liberal and a staunch Imperialist whose beliefs were “sane imperialism” and “social reform.”2 The deputy presidents who followed Cook had a smaller public stature than he had and also a much smaller impact on the league. The figures who succeeded Cook were Sir James Dunlop Smith (1858–1921), Lord Gorell (1884–1963), Sir Charles Bayley (1854–1935), and Lady Beatrice Ormsby-Gore (d. 1980). Prior to their leadership roles with the league, Dunlop Smith and Bayley had both served in India, with Bayley sitting as a member of the Council of India from 1915 to 1924. 3 Lord Gorell was a lawyer and journalist at The Times, who later served in the War Office and became under-secretary of state for air from 1921 to 1922.4 Lady Beatrice Ormsby-Gore, a daughter of the fourth Marquess of Salisbury, moved in the most prominent circles of these interwar deputy presidents. Her husband, William Ormsby-Gore (1885–1964), (later Lord Harlech), was a Unionist mp with a long-time interest in colonial issues (especially related to Africa) who served as colonial secretary from 1936 to 1938. The biggest change to the Victoria League’s leadership came at the level of president. Lady Jersey, who had helped found the league, retired in 1927, though she was given the honorary title presidentfor-life.5 She was succeeded by Lady Forster, the daughter of the 1st Baron Montagu of Beaulieu and the wife of Henry Forster, a Conservative mp from 1892 onwards who became Lord Forster in 1919. He served as governor-general to the Commonwealth of Australia from 1920 to 1925. Lord Forster was described by the Australian press as one of their most popular governor-generals, well regarded for his sunny personality and his ability to combine “the graces of scholarship with the cult of manly outdoor sports.”6 His support for cricket, golf, and yachting helped make him especially popular in Australia. Lady Forster was his vivacious partner in Australia. After she left Australia, one Australian wrote to her, noting that if in Britain she could “encourage all patriotic leagues and other bodies to get into closer liaison and co-operate so that every member here is actively useful, return will speedily come in a more united Empire and better understanding of all men and women.”7 Lord Forster served until 1925 as governor general and then returned to quiet retirement in England. He died in 1936. Lady Forster served as president from 1927 to 1931

176

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

and could not match the imposing presence of her predecessor. She made no notable interventions at executive meetings and wrote no stirring articles. In November 1926 she even wrote to her husband that the Victoria League had placed her on their Executive Committee, which was “an honour I neither desired nor deserved!”8 Despite her reservations, Lady Forster remained, as chairman, the effective leader of the league after 1931, when Princess Alice, the Countess of Athlone (1883–1981) agreed to become president. As a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and the wife of Queen Mary’s brother, the Earl of Athlone (1874–1957), governor-general of South Africa from 1923 to 1931 and later of Canada from 1940 to 1946, Princess Alice increased the prestige of the league and confirmed it in its policy of bringing aristocrats of non-partisan reputation into its leadership as a sign of its desire to avoid controversy.9 Princess Alice was a figurehead president, as Lady Forster continued to sign the annual reports as chairman.10 The League of the Empire had a less fluid leadership. Sir Frederick Pollock remained as president to the end of the 1920s, though he became increasingly inactive. Montagu Rendall (1862–1950) served as the league chairman until 1926, when he was replaced by his longserving deputy, Professor Ernest Gardner. Few records survive from any of these men relating to their work with the League of the Empire, although it is true that none brought in any revolutionary changes. Pollock’s interest in the constitutional and legal structures of the Empire would be ill-served by the post-war League of the Empire. Gardner’s interests in education were to be reflected in the league’s hosting of two Franco-British educational conferences during his tenure as chairman.11 The leadership of the League of the Empire continued to be dominated by leading figures from the world of education. However, as was the case before 1918, most were involved with education at the post-secondary level while the league’s primary audience was clearly elementary school teachers and students. The only exception to this rule was Montagu Rendall, who served as Headmaster at Winchester from 1911 to 1924 but was probably equally out of touch with most trends in British elementary education. He held an aristocratic vision of the Empire and of education. Rendall believed strongly in the need to educate an elite who could then go out to serve the Empire. Greatly affected by the war, he became convinced that the public schools had “a duty and a mission to make their

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

177

best gifts available to a wider public in the post-war world.”12 As the leader of an organization devoted to imperial exchange, he held a low view of education in the Empire, believing even its elite schools to be of “low quality.”13 Rendall’s contribution in discussing educational methods after the war was to offer ringing praise for the public schools. In the later 1920s he was involved with organizing a tour of public schoolboys throughout the Empire and he served as a commissioner of the Rhodes Trust. The elevation of men such as Rendall, Gardner, and Pollock to the leadership reveals a continual weakness in the post-war League of the Empire. Its main foci, teacher exchange and elementary education, were not always well represented at the highest levels. One of the few figures close to elementary education was Dr Bernard Allen, who served as chairman of the interchange committee and even donated £500 to the league after the war.14 His work as deputy education officer with the London County Council kept him far more in tune with educational developments. However, he never held as prominent a position as Pollock, Gardner, or Rendall. One significant non-academic league figure, its founder, Mrs Ord Marshall, died in 1931, leaving as little archival trace in the interwar period as she had earlier.15 She remained one of the few women in the main leadership of the League of the Empire, a key difference between it and the Victoria League. This difference was made even more glaring by the continued popularity of the teaching profession for women and the predominant number of female elementary teachers.16 The absence of women in the leadership was related to the absence of proper representation from elementary school teachers and was an additional weakness in the post-war organization of the league. One of the most important accomplishments of the Victoria League after the war was successfully maintaining its reputation as an non-partisan organization. To appear partisan or to have leading personnel involved in active politics would have proven fatal. The League of the Empire’s leadership, highly slanted towards academics and administrators, required minimal effort to prove its nonparty credentials. The Victoria League’s non-partisan reputation was upheld in several ways. First, the league undertook an outreach campaign to leading Labour Party figures, even at the cost of bending its own rules. Second, it showed a concern for proper representation of Conservative and Liberal figures, though this seemed to

178

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

occur naturally without any special effort. Third, it avoided cooperating with any group that seemed to be overtly partisan. Finally, it attempted to avoid focusing on controversial political issues during the course of its deliberations, although it sometimes found this unavoidable. At the annual public meeting of 1926, Lady Forster noted that the league had “no party bias” and, although its members differed in religion and politics, they were united in appreciation of the Empire.17 Before the war, Labour representation was sparse, though certain figures, such as Albert Mansbridge of the Workers’ Educational Association, were enthusiastic members. After the First World War, the Labour Party was transformed into a potential party of government. Accordingly, the league began to bring in more prominent Labour members and to give greater prominence to those who were already active members. A special effort was made to include “a Labour man” to address the 1923 annual general meeting, and Albert Mansbridge once again did yeoman service. Mansbridge spoke of working-class suspicion and ignorance about the British Empire, and argued that the Victoria League was not an emigration agency but an organization that tried to “put a right spirit to those who migrate.” His vision of the Empire was one in which “everyone shall have [an] opportunity to do the best for themselves.”18 After the formation of the first Labour government in 1924, Labour representation became even more of a priority. At the annual general meeting held during the tenure of the Labour government, a former Labour mp from northern England praised the nonpartisan character of the league and spoke of his “very reasonable [Labour] political beliefs.” He joked that he was compelled to work in his branch with “a very revolutionary character ... the [arch Conservative] Duke of Northumberland.”19 A December 1924 executive committee meeting noted that “it was increasingly important to maintain the character of the Executive as representing all political parties.” Mrs Malcolm, a prominent executive committee member, noted that “an effort should be made to secure a well-known and representative member of the Labour Party as an additional Member of the Committee.”20 In 1925 Mrs Philip Snowden (1880–1951), the wife of the Labour chancellor of the exchequer in the 1924 Labour government, was elected to the Victoria League’s executive committee.21 She was a well-known advocate of temperance and female suf-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

179

frage before the war and a member of the women’s section of the Labour Party’s national executive. After the war, she became unpopular in Labour circles because of her patronizing manner and her generally unsympathetic study of the Russian revolutionary experiment, Through Bolshevik Russia. Still, the league revelled in the prestige of having such a well-known Labour figure on its executive. Even when she became a governor of the bbc in 1926 and was unable to attend league meetings regularly, her offers to resign were continually declined.22 Mrs Snowden finally left the league in 1931, because of her husband’s illness.23 While with the league, she noted that those with very diverse political opinions on other questions could always find common ground when discussing the Empire.24 By the time of the second Labour government in 1929, Lord Passfield [Sidney Webb], the Dominions secretary, was an honorary vice president and the wife of his successor, Mrs J.H. Thomas, joined Mrs Snowden on the executive committee.25 In addition to the wives of prominent Labour ministers, several Labour mps served on the league, including Rosslyn Mitchell (1879–1965), and A.V. Alexander (1885–1965). Mitchell was a relatively minor figure, a former Glasgow councillor whose only prominence came in defeating the former Liberal Prime Minister H.H. Asquith in Paisley in the 1924 general election. Mitchell held that seat until 1929. Alexander served as Labour parliamentary secretary to the Board of Trade in 1924, as First Lord of the Admiralty from 1929 to 1931, and again during Churchill’s wartime coalition, and as minister without portfolio and minister of defence in Attlee’s post-Second World War Labour administration.26 Although both had to resign after only a year because of health or pressures of business, their presence was still noteworthy. The Victoria League was clearly not a major haven for Labour figures, but it was far from unacceptable for them. Despite its claim to being non-partisan and its effective courting of Labour members, the Victoria League had very strong Conservative representation. In addition, the procurement of Liberal members after the war took a much lower priority. While the wives of Labour ministers were league members, Conservative and Coalition cabinet ministers, such as Lord Milner, Neville Chamberlain and Leo Amery, actually addressed Victoria League meetings, usually in support of resolutions praising the league’s work.27 Conservative women were equally involved. Mrs Baldwin received guests at the Victoria League

180

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ball of 1924 and Mrs Amery gave a speech recounting her 1928 Empire tour accompanying her husband.28 While major Labour figures went unmentioned, the Victoria League’s main publication, Monthly Notes, featured biographical profiles on Conservative figures, past and present, including Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Shaftesbury, and Bonar Law.29 Liberals were also much less prominent. No Liberals were profiled in league publications. Some moves were made to bolster Liberal membership and, in 1927, an effort was made to include a Liberal woman on the Executive Committee. The relatively obscure Lady Allendale eventually joined, rather than other more prominent Liberals who had been considered earlier, such as Miss Lloyd George and Lady Leverhulme.30 A few prominent Liberals such as Viscountess Harcourt had been members of the executive in the immediate post-war period.31 Along with ensuring membership from all the major political parties, the Victoria League attempted to preserve its non-partisan reputation by avoiding close co-operation with any patriotic or party organization that was perceived as being too harshly partisan. Invitations for co-operation with party organizations, no matter how innocuous, were rejected out of hand. In 1924 a request from the North Kensington Women’s Conservative Association to host Victoria League lectures was refused because “there would be a great risk of damaging the League’s reputation as a strictly non-party organization.”32 Invitations from other anti-Labour organizations such as the National Political League, the Primrose League, and the Young Britons, and even a request to join an Anti-Communist meeting, were similarly rejected for fear of becoming tarred with a party allegiance.33 Invitations from left-wing organizations were fewer, but a request from the Industrial Christian Friendship for a league representative at a meeting on “the abolition of the present social order” was politely declined.34 The league was also careful to avoid co-operating with groups whose imperial work fell outside its preferred emphasis on education and hospitality. Therefore calls to work with the Self-Supporting Empire League, the British Commonwealth League, the Navy League, and the Women’s Guild of Empire were refused.35 Through this attention to detail, the Victoria League was able to remain an acceptable vehicle for members of all parties and preserve its non-partisan reputation.

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

181

One final way to determine the depth of the Victoria League’s belief in non-partisanship is to examine its behaviour towards various political controversies in the 1920s. For the most part, politics per se were entirely avoided. In particular, any political controversy regarding the Empire was eschewed or downplayed. A request to Victoria League headquarters from the Australian Victoria League branches to help promote the appointment of Australians as governors-general was refused.36 Dominion autonomy, a major constitutional development stemming from the First World War, was touched on but not at any great length.37 A related topic, the question of greater self-rule for India, was discussed during the Round Table Conference on India’s future in 1931. A Victoria League writer did not reject Indian reform out of hand but argued against granting full “home rule.”38 The Statute of Westminster, the culmination of interwar imperial constitutional development, was not mentioned. Still, the Victoria League did comment on other controversial political developments, including the General Strike of 1926 and the rise of Benito Mussolini to power in Italy. During the General Strike, the league made no pretense of complete non-partisanship; its members organized a canteen at Fenchurch Street Station to assist the staff and voluntary workers of the lms Railway.39 A more disturbing trend was approval of the activities of Mussolini. G.H. Hallam, the editor of the regular “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages” in the Monthly Notes was present in Italy during the fascist take-over, about which he wrote a series of laudatory articles. Hallam was particularly enthusiastic about the fascist influence on “economy, work [and] discipline” and its regenerative influence on Italy. Not until 1925 was Hallam willing to admit that Mussolini might be a slightly flawed figure who held an “extraordinary magnetism ... [but] often seems to lose control of himself.”40 Such love of Mussolini in the mid-1920s was not uncommon among British Conservatives and right-wing patriots, though the more thoughtful were more dubious about applying Italian methods to Britain.41 In sum, the Victoria League was not completely non-partisan, but it approached the ideal. In a few cases, the league did embrace politically controversial topics, but this was usually due to the idiosyncrasies of particular members. The biggest organizational challenge for both leagues was finance. This challenge forced them to consider new ways of increasing rev-

182

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

enues and even re-opened the divisive question of amalgamation. A much greater variety of financial records have survived from the Victoria League than from the League of the Empire. A good deal of information about the latter organization’s finances between the wars was destroyed by bombing in the Second World War. The records of the Victoria League survive in far better form and show an organization willing to become involved in a whole range of fund-raising activities, both traditional and new. For the most part, the Victoria League remained healthy financially during the 1920s. Its finances remained fairly steady, with annual receipts exceeding £2,400 every year from 1919 to 1933 except two.42 Only in the economic downturn of 1931 did the league experience real financial difficulties, as subscriptions, donations, and external funding fell dramatically, leading to staff and budget cuts.43 Throughout the 1920s, subscriptions and donations remained firm sources of revenue, with the former averaging £1,169 and the latter £156. The league proved exceptionally creative in finding avenues for raising funds. A Victoria League ball was held almost every year during this period, raising an average of £526. The appeal of this event was heightened by the appearance of various imperial celebrities, such as the Prince of Wales, who attended the 1923 ball. A typical attendance was over five hundred people.44 The league’s financial dependence on a single high-profile event such as the ball drew concerned comment from executive committee members such as Lady Sybil Middleton.45 The league did attempt a number of other fund-raising ventures, including produce sales, bridge tournaments, and members’ teas. However, at their very best these alternative events rarely raised more than half the average amount raised by the ball.46 In addition to its own fundraising events, the Victoria League also received various forms of external or extraordinary funding. For example, after the closing of the Scottish Soldiers’ clubs, the relatively wealthy Edinburgh branch made a £500 gift to Central Funds.47 The most important regular source of external funding was a £500 grant from the Rhodes Trust, first made in 1907 and renewed at intervals afterwards. Although this grant was renewed repeatedly throughout the 1920s, there was always the fear that it would be cancelled.48 Records from the Rhodes Trust indicate that the Victoria League remained the trust’s favoured funding vehicle, with its grant usual-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

183

ly extended with little controversy.49 Consequently, the Victoria League’s balance sheet was strong. By the end of the 1920s, its annual income even before the Rhodes Trust grant ranged from £900 to £1,000.50 By contrast, the League of the Empire was much less lavishly funded by the Rhodes Trust in the interwar period. By 1932 the Rhodes Trust had given the League a total of £1,400 of which £600 was for bursaries supporting exchange teachers from the Dominions.51 The Victoria League’s greater financial muscle, as well as its similar activities, led to some consideration of merging the two groups by the end of the 1920s. The Victoria League interacted most with the League of the Empire and the Royal Colonial Institute. The Victoria League had made a failed effort to amalgamate with the former in 1909 and had been on a joint committee with the latter since 1913. For the most part, postwar relations between the institute and the league were fairly cordial. The institute’s primary post-war concern was with the Imperial Studies Movement, whereas the Victoria League concentrated on its specialties of education and hospitality. Occasional difficulties flared when provincial branches such as the Sheffield branch briefly considered amalgamation. However, this problem was solved by an astute division of education work in which the league focused on schools while the institute focused on university lectures. Co-operation was to come in the establishment of joint hospitality work for introductions of students.52 In addition to working with the Royal Colonial Institute, post-war attempts were made to avoid duplicating the efforts of the other empire societies and to better co-ordinate their activities. However, practically all of them came to naught. For example, Lord Gorell suggested in 1924 that a Central Council of Empire Organizations be created to avoid overlapping, but this suggestion went nowhere.53 The one organization that entered into substantive discussions with the Victoria League was the League of the Empire. During the interwar period, the former organization was considerably more active than the latter. In 1931 the League of the Empire once again considered the possibility of amalgamation with the Victoria League. These discussions were far less acrimonious than the prewar efforts and reveal a common approach to imperial matters. Talks began very informally after Mrs Ord Marshall’s death in April 1931, with the formation of a small sub-committee.54 However, discus-

184

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

sions went so well that they became full-blown negotiations several months later. A joint hospitality committee, with representatives from both leagues, was formed to fully co-operate on dispensing hospitality for exchange teachers. Co-operation between the two groups’ correspondence schemes was also launched.55 Lady Forster noted that the League of the Empire felt that the Depression complicated the continued existence of empire societies and made cooperation the most viable option.56 Co-operation extended to sharing school slides and making a joint appeal to the Rhodes Trust for external funding. 57 However, the enthusiasm for joint work never created any momentum for an outright merger. Even the tentative discussions brought complaints from overseas branches against affiliation. To reassure the grassroots, the Victoria League made it perfectly clear that it was only interested in “close and friendly co-operation in Great Britain” between the two organizations.58 In 1932 Lady Beatrice Ormsby-Gore argued that her organization favoured co-operation but did not wish “to force the pace” in any way that would not carry the opinion of the League of the Empire rank and file.59 Even in the depths of the Depression, complete amalgamation was not to be. Although co-operation did increase, the two leagues maintained their separate existences throughout the period and do so even today. A final organizational concern was membership. Membership figures are completely non-existent for the League of the Empire. Membership figures for the Victoria League are incomplete but indicate continuity if not spectacular growth. Existing attendance figures for meetings show that for five years between 1921 and 1927, the league’s general meeting averaged seventy-five members, the council meeting sixty-six, and the public meeting at the Guildhall seven hundred and sixty.60 These meetings were occasionally mentioned in The Times, though the league did lament that coverage was not wider.61 Clearly the Victoria League was not as major an organization as it had been before 1918. This decline was shown in its membership figures. Although no total figures for active membership exist, there are records of the new members joining the League. The existing figures indicate that between 1919 and 1920 and 1930 and 1931, the league gained 2,005 new members, which after subtracting the losses due to death and resignation made a net gain of 1,376. On average, the league made a gross gain of 167 new members and a net gain of 115

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

185

members per year during this period.62 Evidence shows that some branches began to revive after the war but a number went into abeyance. Annual reports contain branch updates from twenty-one branches in 1919, but this decreased to thirteen branches by the end of the 1920s. After the war, new branches were formed in Bridgwater (Somerset), Cambridge, and Yorkshire.63 Records from the Branch Committee after the war specifically mention the revival of branches in Sheffield, Woking, and Bath after 1919.64 Clearly, the Victoria League was not a mass patriotic organization and it even lost branches in the interwar period. Although the total number of members was increasing, the reduction of active branches indicated that the league had a lesser place in British society after 1918. Nevertheless, its fate does not seem quite so bad in comparison to the complete disintegration of other patriotic organizations such as the National Service League. The Victoria League’s executive committee summed up the league’s post-war situation quite well when it noted that it was “very satisfactory that, at the present difficult time, the League was succeeding not only in making good losses in membership, but in slightly increasing its Members.”65 This time was one of transition for the leadership and for organizations in general. It also put some strain on the leagues’ finances although neither organization was insolvent. The onset of the Depression pushed the leagues into much closer co-operation, but they still maintained their own independence. The Victoria League’s independence was also preserved through its attention to maintaining its nonpartisan reputation. With their organizations intact, the two leagues were able to concentrate on education, hospitality, and propaganda in the post-war period. With sound if reduced foundations, they could react to the changes in the post-war British Empire and embrace new directions without fear of disintegrating from within.

education and hospitality Together, education and hospitality were crucial to the Victoria League and the League of the Empire’s interwar effort to promote the British Empire. For the most part, both leagues preferred not to devote substantial time and resources to imperial textbooks or to an imperial curriculum for the schools. Instead, they focused on reaching individuals directly rather than through educational institutions.

186

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Although extra-curricular imperial lectures remained a staple for the Victoria League, most post-war educational work for both organizations came through more personalized efforts such as providing hospitality for visiting imperial students or arranging teacher exchanges. Both of these initiatives reveal a desire to have participants learn about the Empire from beyond the classroom. Teacher exchange, the major educational work of the post-war League of the Empire, offered a chance to widen the imperial horizons of the teachers involved, many of whom were women. Hospitality for students coming from the outposts of the Empire, especially British Malaya, gave the Victoria League a chance to promote imperial loyalty among the colonial elites of the future. When the classroom was explicitly considered by the League of the Empire, a strong effort was made to appear current in considering new developments in pedagogy and the importance of social conditions in affecting children’s education. The old pre-war confidence that improved textbooks and Imperial Studies lessons would best spread imperial knowledge no longer remained. Instead, a more personalized approach to imperial education was thought to be most effective. The largest educational activity launched by either of the patriotic leagues was the League of the Empire’s teacher exchange program. Apart from the league’s own in-house histories, there has been no major historiographical examination of its teacher exchange program. James Greenlee’s work Education and Imperial Unity does an excellent job of chronicling the League of the Empire’s participation in the Imperial Studies movement, but has little to say on teacher exchange. He incorrectly argues that “deliberations on the exchange question never really began” and the establishment of an exchange system “came to naught.”66 A closer examination of the historical record reveals a much richer picture. Early efforts at exchanging teachers between Canada and the United Kingdom had been attempted before the war by an organization known as “the Hands Across the Sea” movement (later re-named the Overseas Education League) but had met with limited success and even occasional conflict.67 Before 1914 individual teachers had also arranged their own self-financed educational trips to the United Kingdom. This option remained difficult for those without private means.68 Teacher migration was another option, as migrating teachers often sought statements of qualifications from the Board of Education to satisfy over-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

187

seas education departments. Neither the Canadian nor personal efforts were believed to be adequate. As discussed earlier, the League of the Empire held a series of pre-war conferences to consider how to exchange teachers in a systematic fashion. A host of administrative questions had to be worked out before any scheme could function. Difficult questions, including the mutual recognition of teaching certificates, teachers’ salaries, income tax, superannuation contributions, sick pay and holiday pay, terms of service, and age limits, all had to be solved for a major interchange system to work. After the league’s 1912 conference, arrangements had been finalized to launch a definite scheme of teacher exchange, but the First World War brought the general organization of the scheme to a halt.69 However, the influx of hundreds of male teachers from the Empire as soldiers had a stimulating effect; many sought educational leave after the war to study in British schools, training colleges, and universities.70 In response to the wartime shortage of teachers, large-scale migration of English and overseas teachers began after 1918.71 No system of strict interchange was then in place and the number of overseas teachers holding temporary appointments in Britain was double that of British teachers overseas.72 By 1921 an interchange scheme was formally launched, but it suffered from the various problems of postwar Britain, including massive cuts to education launched by the Lloyd George coalition government. The scheme’s survival was ensured only by the success of the 1923 Imperial Education Conference, which laid down the key rules for strict exchange that were followed thereafter.73 Strict interchange was now launched and the League of the Empire was accepted by the Overseas Education Departments, the London County Council (lcc), and the English and Scottish Boards of Education as the official vehicle to arrange exchanges.74 According to the Board of Education, teacher exchanges were better undertaken by “a purely voluntary agency,” “non-political and non-sectarian,” such as the League, rather than depending on the “necessarily impersonal methods of official administration.” The league was believed to be the best vehicle for promoting “co-operation in education between different countries of the Empire and to inspire active personal interest in Imperial problems.”75 A few administrative problems lingered, such as recognition of qualifications, but such details were usually solved with the goodwill of the imperial education authorities. The British government’s passage of a

188

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Teachers’ Superannuation Act in 1926 put into law the right of British teachers to count a year of service in the Dominions when calculating their pensions.76 Financial assistance for travelling costs of teachers on exchange was meagre, consisting of a few bursaries from various authorities, the league itself, and the Rhodes Trustees.77 In the mid1930s an emergency loan fund was established by the league to help exchange teachers meet any unexpected expenses, but other than that teachers were dependent on their own salaries.78 Once interchange was launched, the number of participating teachers grew rapidly. The numbers of teachers interchanged rose from two British and four Dominion teachers in 1919 to 100 each of British and Dominion teachers in 1930, before the financial crisis cut these numbers in half.79 Including the early years in which strict interchange was not practised, a total of 2,156 teachers went on exchange between 1919 and 1933: 1,026 from Britain and 1,130 from the Dominions. By 1933, 113 local authorities in England, 8 local authorities in Wales, and 20 local authorities in Scotland were participating. The overseas authorities of seven Canadian provinces, six Australian states, three South African provinces, as well as the Dominions of New Zealand and Newfoundland and the semiautonomous colony of Southern Rhodesia co-operated with the league scheme. One of the most important aspects of teacher exchange was its predominantly female nature. Ninety-five per cent of the teachers were female.80 This was because the vast majority of teachers exchanged were from elementary schools, a traditionally female profession both in Britain and overseas. Figures do not exist for the entire period of exchange but between 1919 and 1926, 350 out of 358 British teachers and 452 of 460 Dominion teachers exchanged were elementary school teachers.81 Exchanges were important for teachers for imperial, personal, and professional reasons. Among the most cited reasons given by the League in support of the exchange scheme was that it was a practical act of empire building. The most obvious way to further empire building was through heightening schoolchildren’s interest in the Empire. Students formed the “citizens of the future,” who would learn about the wonders of the Empire from teachers who lived outside Britain itself and would form sympathies with children beyond the seas.82 Another editorial noted that loyalty to the Empire had its root in schoolteaching. Therefore, the more that teachers were

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

189

brought into direct contact with the mother country and Dominions, the more they could foster in the minds of their charges that “we are all citizens of a great Empire.”83 Teachers would return from imperial travel with a “broadened outlook, wider sympathies, deeper understanding, increased love of Empire” as well as “quickened interest in history, geography and literature, the forming of friendships [and] admiration for good qualities in other nations.” Editorials in League of the Empire publications spoke of increasing the “bonds of Empire” and the “spiritual unity” of the Empire through the exchange scheme. All of these goals appealed to a deeper level of empire building but many could also be quite direct.84 A Board of Education Report for 1925 to 1926 pointed to the immense practical imperial knowledge held by returned exchange teachers. Through keeping in touch with “guest friends” overseas and through other personal experiences, teachers would be able to offer sage advice on the actual conditions overseas and “prevent [the] endless misunderstanding” that can “make all the difference in the world to the intending emigrant.”85 Exchange teachers commented on the process of empire building. One Canadian exchange teacher wrote to Dr Bernard Allen that the London County Council’s involvement in her exchange had made it “a great factor in an effective Empire building movement.” Friendships made throughout the Empire would help make the “Empire permanent” and the experience would lead to a broadened sense of ideals. Another teacher wrote to Mrs Ord Marshall asserting that her exchange had enriched her ideals and the Empire “is a more real thing to me than ever before.”86 An English teacher returning from Canada wrote of acquiring a “living knowledge of what is meant by our Dominions and a love of the Canadian people”; another of “the wider outlook [and] the ties of Empire.”87 Intriguingly, teacher exchanges could also bolster a sense of domesticated masculinity as well as foster feminine friendships. One of the few South African male teachers to participate in the scheme put it best when he said that his exchange made him “not only a better teacher but a better citizen, a better subject of the British Empire and a more complete man.”88 All these comments display a personalized sense of Empire devoid of militaristic or acquisitive sentiments and aggressive masculinity. The experiences of teachers overseas, the sights they had seen and the feeling of being part of a greater whole formed the building

190

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

blocks of imperial loyalty that the League of the Empire promoted through teacher exchange. Part of building a sense of Empire involved providing imperial hospitality for teachers. Social activities for teachers included tours of London, provincial landmarks, country houses, and gardens, and invitations to exclusive functions such as the Royal Garden parties at Buckingham Palace, as well as organized social functions and special talks at the league’s London headquarters.89 More permanent forms of imperial hospitality included the establishment of a London exchange teachers club, which promoted interaction between English teachers returning from exchange and visiting overseas teachers, and the creation of a home centre for overseas teachers.90 The latter effort showed the league’s determination to place its imperial hospitality efforts on a permanent foundation. As mentioned in chapter 2, in 1918 the League of the Empire had suggested the establishment of a residential headquarters for visiting imperial teachers in London. This idea was formally proposed at the 1919 conference of the Imperial Union of Teachers as a memorial to soldier-teachers of the Empire. A campaign to raise £25,000 was subsequently launched.91 Initially, less than one tenth of the requested figure (£2,000) was collected.92 However, by 1931 this amount had more than doubled to £4,525.93 Three-fifths of this money was used to purchase a sixty-year lease and to turn Mrs Ord Marshall’s house, which the league was using as its headquarters, into a residence. With eight furnished bedrooms, a sitting room and drawing room, it brought in a yearly income of about £400 and was appropriately named “Ord Marshall House.”94 Teacher exchange did more than build a sense of Empire through hospitality and travel. Teachers valued the experience for personal and professional reasons. The most important personal reason was a sense of freedom and personal growth, especially for unmarried female teachers. Virginia Nicholson has pointed to British single women’s interwar struggles and successes. With over 750,000 men killed in the First World War, many women had to support themselves. Teaching remained a popular female profession after 1918. Nicholson notes that the average annual salary for a female teacher by 1931 was £254 (£80 less than for the average male teacher). Some 85 per cent of female teachers in the 1920s and 1930s were unmarried.95 There has been historical research on unmarried middle-class

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

191

Englishwomen who emigrated in search of greater opportunity and freedom overseas before 1914.96 Although unmarried teachers were not emigrating to the Empire, their low salaries and status during the interwar period placed them amongst the most marginalized of the middle-class professionals.97 The league’s program gave women teachers an unprecedented opportunity to see the Empire and other parts of the world. Just as Angela Woollacott has shown the formative impact for young female “colonials” visiting London, the same process worked in reverse.98 One English female teacher visiting British Columbia with another female colleague wrote in lyrical terms of the exhilaration of living in an area of great natural beauty and its reinvigorating impact.99 The league’s 1934 report profiled an adventuresome English teacher in New Zealand who travelled to a remote Maori school to collect native songs and dances, which she would later use for collaborative research with a professor from Canterbury College.100 In an article entitled “The Pleasures of Travel,” an overseas teacher pointed to the importance of travel for relieving tensions and gaining a “wider outlook.” Teachers were described as being traditionally “much handicapped” in their travel opportunities because of financial reasons. The interchange system gave teachers the opportunity to travel and the League of the Empire was much praised for its work.101 Travel could be specifically for empire-building purposes, but also satisfied general intellectual curiosity and a love of European culture. From 1922 onwards, the league arranged a Christmas trip to Rome and the South of France for visiting teachers, which had more to do with the personal interests of the travellers than with empire building.102 Similar European jaunts to Holland were arranged and the League’s Special Education Congress of 1926 was held in Paris.103 In descriptions of all of these trips, the emphasis was on teachers’ enjoyment and personal interest, and on cultural attractions, not on the Empire per se. This formed an important supplement to the maternalistic images of domesticated imperialism publicized by imperialist leagues. The Empire could cultivate a sense of adventuresome femininity linked not just to motherhood and marriage but to notions of self-fulfillment for single women. Though Englishness and popular imperialism could be portrayed in a domesticated fashion, the interwar teacher exchange program also gave women the chance to articulate a new form of modern femi-

192

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

ninity, which accompanied post-war advances in women’s general political, social, and economic position.104 One final element of the teacher exchange program was its attention to developments in educational methods. The league referred to a stereotype that English teachers had nothing to learn about educational technique by going to the Dominions. From the words of teachers themselves, this clearly was not the case. Innovation in educational methods was a less frequently cited benefit of teacher exchange than empire building or personal growth. However, it did appear in accounts from time to time. One English teacher pointed to an Australian school’s new and effective method of teaching numbers “which secured astonishing results.”105 The Report of the Board of Education for 1925 to 1926 notes that a year overseas greatly opened the eyes and broadened the minds of English teachers. Unhindered by tradition or pre-existing institutions, teachers in the Dominions were able to attempt many interesting experiments impossible in Britain.106 In general, the interest of both overseas and English teachers was drawn “to the organization of the schools, different forms of classification, various methods of teaching [and] the wide range of syllabus.”107 These and similar topics of educational innovation would be a staple in the league’s publications, reflecting a professional interest in teacher exchange. Another area of considerable import for the League of the Empire was its discussion of educating the English poor. In a sense, there is an element of colonial “slumming” in the streets of London.108 An Australian exchange teacher noted the work of the settlement movement in spreading culture to the London poor and pondered its efficacy for Australia.109 London held a particular fascination for visiting overseas teachers interested in educational experiments among the poor. A secondary teacher from New South Wales wrote of her work in London’s slum areas. The efforts of the schools in bringing “orderliness, cleanliness and tidiness” to the inhabitants of crowded courts and alleys were much praised. Leadership skills were taught through a prefect system instituted by teachers and “esprit de corps” was fostered through games. Although education was seen as a crucial force in moulding the London poor, this particular teacher believed that the true solution to the problem was massive emigration to the “empty spaces” of Australia and the Empire. The imperial awareness of British children had first to be raised through further education efforts, including

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

193

lantern lectures and an expansion of the league’s correspondence scheme.110 In all, professional observations of different educational methods were another important part of the League of the Empire’s system of teacher exchange. The Victoria League did not have any education or hospitality initiative as wide-ranging as the League of the Empire’s teacher exchange program. However, it strongly believed in the value of hospitality as a bonding agent of Empire. At the annual meeting of 1922, Arthur Balfour noted that the key problem facing the British Empire was one of distance. The Victoria League’s hospitality was part of the solution. A sense of “true imperial patriotism” could be fostered by cultivating a “community of spirit” for overseas visitors.111 It is true that many visitors from the Dominions had already been saturated with English history prior to arrival and that visions of Britain and London particularly formed a key part of their own sense of identity.112 Nevertheless, the practical aspects of visiting Britain often meant the Victoria League’s hospitality was greatly appreciated. Angela Woollacott has mentioned that young upper middle-class Australian women joined the league “prior to their departure from Australia, in order to obtain hospitality or social connections in Britain.”113 In addition, the Victoria League continued to dispense imperial hospitality to a variety of visitors to England, including South African farmers, Canadian officers, Australian naval ratings, the Australian women’s hockey teams, and delegates to the Congress of Empire Universities.114 Delegates to both the Imperial Education Conference and the Imperial Conference in 1923 were given receptions.115 Addresses of welcome were sent and hospitality offered to the visiting delegations at the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930.116 In 1927 special invitations were issued to spend days in the country and view famous English gardens. Other invitations were to royal functions and garden parties, as well as to visits to great houses and suitably historic sites such as Harrow, Eton, Oxford, and Cambridge.117 Parties were also held at the Victoria League headquarters in London, as well as dances, which proved especially popular with students. It was impossible for an organization of limited means such as the Victoria League to keep in contact with more than a small proportion of all imperial visitors. In its peak year of 1928 to 1929, 11,500 invitations were sent out for league hospitality functions, with about one-tenth sent to home members.118 In its lowest year of 1931 to 1932, the league issued just under half the peak

194

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

year’s number of invitations.119 The total number of imperial tourists to Britain during the interwar period is difficult to measure. There are no figures solely for imperial visitors. However, comparable numbers of overseas-British visitors [i.e. British subjects resident in the Empire as well as foreign countries] were 237,987 for 1928 and 217,808 for 1931. Measured as a percentage, the league issued invitations to 4 per cent of all overseas-British visitors in its peak year and 2 per cent in its lowest.120 One special Victoria League hospitality program was its work with the Empire Exhibition. The British Empire Exhibition of 1924 and 1925 was one of the largest imperial spectacles in interwar Britain. A huge site at Wembley was prepared, with pavilions profiling the architecture and culture of their countries of origin. Combined with rides and other attractions, the exhibition was a major success and drew a total of twenty-seven million visitors from Britain and around the world.121 From early on, the Victoria League felt that the exhibition would give it an important role to play in assisting overseas visitors. The league actively participated in the women’s section of the exhibition, working with other empire societies to co-ordinate arrangements for hospitality and provide information on accommodations. In this latter capacity, it helped run an Empire Visitors’ Information Bureau.122 The League tried to combine some educational activities with the exhibition, arranging lectures and sending a representative to an Imperial Studies committee organizing a conference on educational subjects.123 However, for the most part, the Victoria League’s involvement was restricted to hospitality. The Victoria League’s hospitality initiatives interacted with education in several ways. In the first instance, the league offered hospitality on a minor level for exchange teachers. The Overseas Education League interacted uneasily with the Victoria League. Already in conflict with the League of the Empire, the Overseas Education League wished for a large-scale common effort with the Victoria League to help with teacher exchange between Canada and Britain. The Victoria League offered to help solely with hospitality and remained wary of making detailed arrangements.124 The Victoria League’s other involvement in teacher exchange was similarly limited. The league offered some hospitality to teachers participating in the League of the Empire exchange scheme.125 In 1927 they helped push for the mutual recognition of home and overseas service for teachers’ pensions.126

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

195

In the same year, out of concern about encroaching on the work of the League of the Empire, the Victoria League rejected a proposal made by the Federation of University Women and Headmistresses Association to help arrange the interchange of women secondaryschool teachers.127 Victoria League publications occasionally noted the experiences of visiting teachers.128 At a council meeting in 1932, one member claimed that “even if you were born a Communist, you will return from an exchange thinking in terms of Imperialism and [be] a true Empire Leaguer in every sense of the word.”129 Such enthusiasm showed great appreciation for the ideals of teacher exchange but the bulk of the Victoria League’s combined education and hospitality work lay elsewhere. The Victoria League’s most important educational initiative came in providing hospitality, advice, and guardianship to Malayan students studying in England. After the end of the First World War, with the decline in popularity of Germany as a place of study, Britain was faced with a surge of foreign students.130 Imperial students also flocked to post-war Britain. Many foreign and imperial students came to the University of London, which saw its pre-war student body triple by the end of the 1920s. The university underwent a significant post-war expansion, building many major buildings on its current Bloomsbury site.131 The increase in students brought about new initiatives, such as Frederick Crauford Goodenough’s effort to build London House.132 Although London House was firmly supported by imperial stalwarts such as L.S. Amery, it could only accommodate a fraction of the imperial students and initially had a racial bar to admission.133 In 1922 the Victoria League decided to launch a hospitality initiative to further imperial ties and assist students. Over the next few months, the league was in contact with Sir Neill Malcolm and Sir Lawrence Guillemard, the general officer and governor of the Straits Settlements. Together they wished to arrange a scheme that would look after the interests of Malay, Chinese, Eurasian, and Indian students from Malaya who had come to England to enter university, the Inns of Court or other professional training. Hospitality for students from Malaya would grant them “opportunities of social intercourse with English people of good standing.”134 Sir Malcolm wrote that they had reached a “critical moment in the history of British relations with Malaya,” because relations between the different communities in the colonies had become “less frequent and friendly,” though troubles on the scale of India “had

196

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

not yet arisen.”135 Guillemard, who served as governor from 1920 to 1927, was especially concerned with Communism and “a perceived Chinese takeover of political authority through the instrument of the kmt [Kuomintang] organization.”136 In May 1923 a special sub-committee of the league recommended the creation of a permanent committee in London to whom the Victoria League in Singapore could send introductions of all students. This London committee would try to make boarding arrangements for the visiting students and offer them hospitality, information, and assistance. The committee noted that because the Chinese students were “accustomed to European dress” and the Christian religion, they would be fairly adaptable to British society.137 As the Malayan students began to arrive in larger numbers, the Victoria League’s special hospitality project was well underway. By 1927 the increasing number of students bringing introductions led the Victoria League to appoint a special officer to be “responsible under the v.l. auspices for the welfare of the students [and] the direction of their studies.” This official, a retired civil servant, was to be paid by the government of the Federated Malay States.138 The official hired, Mr Morkill, wrote a series of reports on the students for the Victoria League, which show an extremely detailed and perhaps intrusive interest in the professional, social, and moral welfare of Malayan students studying in Britain. Morkill had been a member of the Malayan civil service from 1914 until the time of his league appointment and was responsible for public safety in the Federated States in the immediate post-war period.139 He kept continuous records on fifty students who arrived from Malaya between 1924 to 1930.140 One problem that arose was the Victoria League’s attitude towards students’ allowances, which ranged from a low of £233 to a high of £1,300. This was complicated by the fact that, in some cases, allowances were paid through the league, which often acted as the students’ official guardian.141 Another problem was the repatriation of necessitous students. The Victoria League also demonstrated a concern about students who seemed incapable of sustained study and those who arrived at university or the Inns of Court lacking the required preparatory examinations.142 Existing records provide the greatest detail on those who gave the most trouble. For the most part, students were recorded as dutifully working away at their studies like any other students. The league even organized various social events to make their stay in Britain

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

197

more pleasant, including a tennis tournament at which it was recorded that the “standard of play was high and good sportsmanship was exhibited.”143 In this way, sport paved the way for greater imperial understanding.144 The Victoria League hospitality initiative towards Malayan students is especially important for several reasons. First, it proved beyond a doubt that their post-war vision of Empire was colour-blind. It marked a major departure from its earlier days. Julia Bush has described the huge controversy that erupted in the Victoria League in 1907 over the proposal to provide hospitality to Indian students residing in Britain. Although Lady Jersey was in favour, Violet Markham and Violet Cecil were violently opposed and the proposal was rejected.145 Truly, the war had overturned such attitudes. Recent research by Lynn Hollen Lees has shown that “Britishness” was claimed as one of several identities by Asians from Malaya in the early twentieth century.146 In this way, the Victoria League was ahead of other Anglo-Saxon imperial projects, such as the Rhodes Scholarships or London House, although they both later made the same evolution.147 Second, this relative openness was partly a reaction to the dangers of future imperial unrest and revealed a strong streak of paternalism. The league’s discussions of the project often referred to its efficacy in creating a new generation of non-British imperial subjects loyal to the ideals of the Empire. The league noted that often study experience in Britain by visiting colonials had the opposite effect. Overseas students left to their own devices often happened to “drift into a violently anti-British set” or remained “very lonely” in the heart of the Empire.148 The right approach was to be sure that non-English students and scholars in Britain were “welcomed and well treated and given the right kind of hospitality and made to feel that as they grow older they are assets to the Empire.”149 Finally, the Malayan effort showed the Victoria League’s desire to specifically combine education and hospitality in an identifiable niche rather than merely dispense general hospitality to all imperial visitors. Regardless of its intentions, the Victoria League scheme was noted as a general success. Both the governor of Hong Kong and the British Women’s Association in Shanghai requested an extension of the scheme to include students from these areas as well. The former request was accepted and the latter denied, as the Victoria League wished to limit its hospitality to British subjects.150 In 1938 a report on colonial students by a Colonial Office

198

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

committee chaired by Sir George Tomlinson gave its “complete approval” to the Victoria League’s initiatives for students from Malaya and Hong Kong and recommended that similar machinery be created for all colonial students. This work, to be entrusted to all empire societies but directed by the Victoria League, was cut short by the Second World War.151 However, the Victoria League continues to exist and runs a student hostel in Bayswater, London, open to students from throughout the Commonwealth. The Victoria League and the League of the Empire combined education and hospitality in a variety of challenging ways after the end of the First World War. Teacher exchange and hospitality to Malayan students proved to be innovative ways of building a greater sense of Empire free from militaristic or acquisitive sentiments. In both cases, the leagues hoped their attention to the care and interests of the visiting scholars, teachers, or students would serve as a means of furthering their imperial education. Both leagues were involved in other, more formal educational projects, ranging from lectures to discussions of educational organization and methods. In these other projects, the focus was on pedagogy and content, not sentiment. However, although hospitality was sentimental, it should not be ignored. It was an activity well suited to the post-war period in which aggressive promotion of Empire was less popular. Hospitality could draw on the skills of the numerous female members of both organizations. The Victoria League continued its past practice of hospitality to the general public and participated in the largest public spectacle of Empire in the post-war period, the British Empire Exhibition. However, the combination of education with hospitality found special favour with both organizations and was pursued with considerable success. The attraction of imperial hospitality remained long after interest in other patriotic and imperial causes, ranging from closer constitutional links to conscription, had ebbed. Hospitality formed a key part of the domestication of the purpose and activities of the patriotic leagues and made a large contribution to their relative success in the interwar period.

education and propaganda After 1918 the Victoria League and the League of the Empire remained committed to educating the British public about the Empire’s importance. During the First World War, the League of the

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

199

Empire had used textbooks to spread knowledge of the Empire through the school system and had hoped to play a major role in a wide-ranging Imperial Studies movement. The Victoria League was less tied to imperial education in the schools and concentrated on wartime propaganda pamphlets as well as lectures in soldiers’ camps and hospitals. The Victoria League also circulated books and newspapers to the isolated outposts of the Empire. Both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire tried to use the new mediums of communication to publicize imperial achievements during the war. Both organizations continued all of these activities in peacetime. However, several key differences emerged. The League of the Empire refocused its energies from the Imperial Studies movement towards more practical issues, such as effective educational methods and the impact of social conditions on education. The Victoria League’s postwar pamphlets had a less strident propagandistic tone as the needs of the war disappeared. In both their educational and propaganda activities, the two organizations showed sensitivity to the changed political and social environment after the First World War. Both jingoistic imperialism and overt praise for the status quo were avoided. The Empire was presented in a peaceful manner and Britain’s social problems were acknowledged. An important difference was the absence of any correspondingly large philanthropic scheme to act on these problems. The use of schools as vehicles for popular imperialism is a muchstudied subject. Much of the existing historiography examines the public schools, cadet movements, school readers, and lesson plans that were filled with imperialist sentiments.152 Much of this historiography has shown the importance of martial and racial imagery in spreading imperialism through the school system. During the First World War, the League of the Empire showed no hesitation in following this trend. With the end of the war, a notable reorientation of the league’s activities and interests took place. School-based imperial education remained a staple for the League of the Empire but underwent some notable modifications. Textbooks ceased to be the major focus. The League of the Empire’s textbook series had consumed much of the league’s time and resources before 1914. After the war, the league continued to advertise and sell the series, but it was not updated, nor were any new volumes published.153 Instead, attention was drawn to pedagogical developments and educational work

200

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

throughout the Empire, which sometimes reflected a newfound interest in social problems. Before the war, the League of the Empire hosted conferences on educational issues, including imperial educational federation and teacher exchange. In the post-war period, the league continued to hold conferences, usually in co-operation with government educational authorities. Imperial education conferences were held in 1919, 1921, 1923, 1924, and 1927. Special conferences on education were also held in 1926 and 1928. The 1919 conference was held in London under the aegis of the Imperial Union of Teachers and attended by two thousand soldier-teachers. As previously mentioned, the highlight of this conference was the announcement of a fund to build a residential headquarters for visiting teachers in London. Demonstrations were also given on new methods of education used in London schools.154 The 1921 Imperial Education conference, postponed since the war, met in Toronto. This conference was hosted by the Ontario government and addressed by the Ontario premier, provincial minister of education, and mayor of Toronto. Three hundred conference delegates attempted to issue a fresh set of imperial textbooks under the false hope that imperial history was to become a main subject in the schools of the Empire. Other sessions included discussions of Canadian education, English public schools, and teacher exchange.155 The 1923 conference opened with “a rousing address emphasizing the significance of educational co-operation in the search for imperial unity.”156 However, it sparked little press enthusiasm and limited itself to questions such as intelligence tests, teacher exchange, student health, and educational administration.157 The 1924 Imperial Education Conference in London was jointly hosted by the league and the British government and discussed teacher exchange. Held in the year of the British Empire Exhibition, this conference was fairly well covered in the press, with a leading article in The Times on teacher exchange, as well as others on pedagogy at home and in the Empire.158 The 1926 special education conference in Paris was more of an excuse for league delegates to enjoy the Continent than anything else, though it did claim that it was a step towards solidifying the wartime alliance into “close intellectual cooperation.” Topics discussed included achieving greater contacts between the English and French educational systems, though the League of the Empire’s role in this process was left unsaid.159 The

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

201

1927 Imperial Education Conference concentrated on details related to teacher exchange, such as superannuation. This conference marked the final move away from larger issues. It became official policy that “no attempt should be made to organize the discussions with a view to formal conclusions, embodied in agreed documents.”160 The 1928 special education conference was a Franco-British educational meeting similar to the Paris conference.161 The Imperial Education conferences and smaller league conferences served as valuable forums to discuss educational issues and develop programs such as teacher exchange. James Greenlee is right to note that “the influence of dominion nationalism and the cautious parochialism of the English Board [of Education]” prevented the implementation of grandiose dreams such as full-scale imperial educational federation, which would have included a standard imperial curriculum and mutually recognized teaching qualifications.162 However, this failure should not detract from the importance of the conferences for the League of the Empire. The league’s prominent role in organizing empire-wide conferences, often co-hosted with provincial or national governments in the Dominions, allowed it to continue its pre-war role as an important non-governmental educational body. In addition, the conferences ironed out the necessary details for teacher exchange and continued an ongoing dialogue on educational methods in Britain and the Empire. These two developments revealed a functioning league adapting itself to the changed imperial climate of the time. Centralized efforts to achieve common goals in imperial education were almost certain to fail in the post-war era. The First World War had led to a greater sense of autonomy amongst the Dominions that would ultimately culminate in the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Imposing decisions from Britain never worked successfully before 1914 and became impossible after 1918. What was needed was a more individualized and smaller-scale approach. Teacher exchange and the League of the Empire’s conferences strove to achieve just that. In addition to its conferences, the League of the Empire showed a newfound interest in educational methods and social problems. Such interests were non-existent during the war and barely present before it. Before the war, the league’s interests centred on teacher exchange. Educational topics such as instruction in the classics, English and geography were raised but no link was made between edu-

202

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

cation and social problems.163 After 1918 stories on problems in imperial education were featured, especially the difficulty of educating students in remote areas such as the Australian outback or Falkland Islands.164 Canada’s educational funding was singled out for specific praise.165 The development of the English educational system was outlined and analyzed by the league fairly uncritically. Dual control of education by the national and local governments was claimed to lead to certain progress by giving “free play for different lines of policy.”166 The London County Council’s system of scholarships and medical inspections was commended for its combination of social mobility and attention to the general welfare of the children.167 However, the League of the Empire was hardly radical in supporting the lcc initiative. The lcc scholarship scheme, much praised by the league, was not wide-ranging. It assisted only two thousand students, who entered the seventy secondary schools maintained by the Council. The fee-paying middle class formed three-quarters of the pupils of London’s secondary schools. Secondary-school admissions in the poorest inner London boroughs, including Bermondsey, were barely one-sixth of those in middle-class boroughs such as Wandsworth and Lewisham. The League of the Empire made no mention of the efforts of the London Labour Party to address the inequalities of the educational system.168 The League of the Empire showed a greater interest in educational methods. Before and during the war, discussions of nationwide educational projects such as Imperial Studies predominated. After the war, the focus returned to the individual classroom. Educational methods and developments played a major role in the league’s postwar educational conferences. A regular columnist in the league’s major publication discussed pedagogical developments. Some of these methods were designed to cultivate greater patriotism among students, such as a suggestion for history teachers to give students projects on the local history of their area to increase their “love and knowledge of the home and homeland.”169 Other suggestions were simply discussions of modern teaching methods, such as the Dalton method, which organized lessons for individual work, as well as intelligence tests and the use of play in education. Education weeks that brought parents into schools even in the “poorest districts” were also highlighted.170 This interest in social conditions and educational methods was not revolutionary: the League of the Empire did not rad-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

203

ically depart from its previous assumptions, nor did it call for any major changes to the status quo. However, it did signify an awareness of the working class’s increased interest in education, perhaps spurred by the 1918 Education Act.171 It also showed a growing awareness of the professionalization of teaching and the need to adapt to new developments. The league did not cease to promote the values of the Empire, but it managed to combine them with an acknowledgment of changes in British society. The Victoria League’s imperial education work was not limited to the school system; it co-operated with the Royal Colonial Institute and the Imperial Studies committee and endorsed its efforts to publicize a scheme of Empire Study. In addition, the Victoria League continued to sponsor school contests, such as essay and poetry contests. A large number of prizewinners were female, though most of the winning topics were deeply masculine and centred on male heroes of Empire, such as Cecil Rhodes, or symbols of national glory.172 Perhaps this indicates that the domestication of popular imperialism in the interwar period was not universal (at least for young audiences). Finally, the Victoria League also circulated “picture talks,” slides with accompanying lecture texts, to schools. These picture talks originally came from the visual instruction committee of the Royal Colonial Institute and could be hired from the Victoria League for 5s a set.173 Between 1918 and 1932, 4,441 sets of slides and picture talks were lent to affiliated schools. They became so popular that the league increased funding of the program and even appealed for outside assistance.174 The Victoria League put its major efforts for imperial education in the post-war period into a new Empire pamphlet scheme. The Empire pamphlet series originated from a request from representatives of the National Union of Teachers and the London Teachers’ Association. The series’ creators hoped that the league’s pamphlets would “provide, in a cheap and easily accessible form, the general facts that teachers and other speakers need as a basis for talks and lessons on the Empire.”175 Each pamphlet came complete with an annotated list of recommended books for further study, which could be borrowed without charge from the Victoria League. This series was much smaller than the league’s ambitious wartime pamphlet effort. Only four pamphlets were published, featuring the largest dominions in the Empire: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. All the

204

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

pamphlets summarized history in a manner flattering to their subject and all stressed the economic potential for the Empire and the need for British immigrants. The first of the series was on New Zealand. It was written by J.B. Condliffe (1891–1981), a lecturer in economics at the University of New Zealand. As the first pamphlet, it set the tone for the series. Of special importance in Condliffe’s pamphlet was its presentation of racial hierarchy, immigration, and government policies for state intervention. On the issue of race, Condliffe looked at the original Maori inhabitants of New Zealand with a fair deal of respect. He pointed favourably to their trans-oceanic migrations and martial qualities, although their development was said to be handicapped by their addiction to blood feuds and continual raids. He was less open-minded towards the racial make-up of new immigrants (especially those from Asia). He strongly supported New Zealand’s nativist immigration policies, which had led to almost complete racial homogeneity, with 98 per cent of the non-aboriginal population holding British ancestry.176 Condliffe strongly wished to attract potential British immigrants. New Zealand was presented as a land of opportunity for those with a work ethic and a special appeal was made for boys who had recently left school. New Zealand’s characteristics were compared positively to the United Kingdom. New Zealand had more efficient labour, and smaller towns free of both slums and row housing. The Dominion was shown to be devoted to sports popular in the mother country and the lifestyle was suitable for a “healthy, vigorous, open-air people.”177 One major difference between Britain and New Zealand discussed by Condliffe was the level of state intervention. Condliffe acknowledged state activity in insurance, railways, telegraphs, telephones, mines, tourism, and loans to settlers. He also noted that New Zealand’s social welfare programs, including “liberal old-age pensions,” had minimized poverty and unemployment. The only interventionist development he did not describe glowingly was New Zealand’s system of compulsory arbitration in which he claims workers had lost confidence. However, despite these manifold developments, Condliffe denied claims that New Zealand was “a collectivist country.” Although New Zealanders supported community action in certain conditions, they tended to be “strong individualists.” The dominant class of smaller farmers was strongly conservative. Overall, Condliffe painted a contradictory picture of New Zealand to fit

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

205

British sensibilities. He praised the Britishness of its inhabitants while painting over New Zealanders’ distinct preference for collectivist action. The second pamphlet in the series highlighted Australia and was written by the Hon. Crawford Vaughan (1874–1947), the former Labour prime minister of South Australia. Vaughan had lost office during the First World War after his administration split over the issue of conscription. Out of parliament after the war, he had the leisure to write for the Victoria League. His pamphlet gave a selective history that somehow managed to avoid any mention of the early settlement of Australia by English convicts. The focus was on the accomplishments of “Australian manhood” on the “battlefields of Gallipoli, Egypt, Palestine [and] France.”178 Vaughan’s pamphlet is noteworthy for three things: his focus on racial hierarchy, his lengthy advice to future settlers, and his discussion of Australian progressive legislation. Vaughan wrote at length on the racial hierarchies in Australia. He placed aboriginals “amongst the lowest of the human race,” while strongly defending the “White Australia” policy.179 Vaughan’s concern to attract the proper type of British settler led him to stress the rigours awaiting potential immigrants. Immigrants were told of the opportunity for settlement, but cautioned on certain points of Australian life including the prevalence of droughts, the difficulties of surviving on scanty vegetation, distant water reserves, and the loneliness of the bush.180 His practical comments on problems made a strong contrast with the content of the other pamphlets. However, Vaughan’s purpose might have been to prevent ill-prepared settlers from returning home embittered. Vaughan was more positive in outlining his country’s progressive political accomplishments. Australia was described as an “Experimental Laboratory of Legislation” which had brought forward innovations such as the secret ballot, women’s suffrage, industrial laws, and social legislation (including pensions and maternity bonuses). Vaughan’s enthusiasm over such legislation was only appropriate, as he had presided over a moderately reformist administration before the war, bringing in a number of reforms related to education, workers’ arbitration, and trade unions.181 Australia’s future prospects were described in glowing terms. The war had shown Australian manhood and womanhood to be “equal to that of the rest of the Dominions” and Australia offered “the spirit of youth and energy, combined with

206

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

an unconquerable faith in the future of the race, and in the ideals for which the race stands.”182 The third pamphlet, on Canada, was written by William Lawson Grant (1872–1935), the headmaster of Upper Canada College from 1917 to 1935 and a former professor of colonial history at Queen’s University and Beit Lecturer in colonial history at Oxford. Unsurprisingly, Grant’s pamphlet heavily emphasized historical developments, although his version of history was reassuring. Major divisive moments between French and English Canada, such as the Riel Rebellion of 1885, the Manitoba Schools question of 1896, and the conscription crisis of 1917, were avoided altogether. Instead, the shared loyalty of French and English to the Empire was continually stressed. Canada’s quest for autonomy was acknowledged, as well as the invigorating effect of the First World War on Canadian nationalism. Grant argued that in fact, if not in form, Canada was “today really an independent nation, held within the Empire by the golden link of the Crown, and by the spiritual ties of a common heritage and common ideals.”183 Canada’s vast natural resources and agricultural and manufacturing wealth were highlighted. Canada had a bright future as long as immigration was continued and “foreigners” (particularly the young in prairie schools) were properly Canadianized. In closing, Grant admitted that Canada had only made a small contribution to world civilization. Canada’s greatest opportunity lay in her ability to be “the reconciling bond between Great Britain and her daughter Republic.”184 The final pamphlet, on South Africa, was written by another academic, W. Kupferburger (1896–1959), a lecturer in geology at Witwatersrand University. The South African government took a special interest in increasing the circulation of this pamphlet. It paid for the printing cost and sought to distribute four thousand copies within a year to boys’ schools above the elementary level.185 The pamphlet followed the previous emphasis on racial hierarchy, state intervention, and the need for immigration. It also had a strong focus on the need for reconciliation between the antagonists of the Boer War, the English and the Boer population. Racial hierarchy and racial policy were more pointed in South Africa than the other pamphlets. A strict hierarchy of the native peoples of South Africa was offered, with the nomadic Bushmen being placed at the bottom as “timid and primitive,” the Hottenots in the middle, and the Bantu at the top. Never-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

207

theless, all native peoples were put far beneath the white inhabitants of South Africa and a policy of separating the races was endorsed to ensure peace and prosperity.186 As with the other dominions, South Africa was portrayed as being rich in resources and ripe for further immigration. The high veldt region of the interior was shown to be particularly suited for European settlement because of its bracing climate.187 Kupferburger downplayed state intervention, saying that it was confined to providing advice for industry, supporting scientific research, and running the railway system. One key to South Africa’s future was developing its manifold resources and redirecting educated South Africans away from the professions and into mining, industry, and agriculture. Another was reconciliation between the previously estranged English and Boer populations. Kupferburger noted optimistically that the rising generation of the two groups was “growing up side by side, speaking each other’s language, honouring each other’s traditions, and sinking all differences for the common ideal.”188 His vision echoed his counterparts in glossing over evident problems and underplaying deep differences between the Mother Country and his home Dominion. The empire pamphlet campaign was a pale echo of the Victoria League’s wartime pamphlet efforts. Sales figures for the Empire pamphlets do not exist, but they obviously did not come close to the one million war pamphlets distributed. In 1922, when the South African government made its offer to help with distribution, the Victoria League noted that the sale of the previous three pamphlets had been “disappointing.”189 If the four thousand copies promised for schools was an improvement over existing sales, it marked only 0.4 per cent of the total wartime sales figure. Nevertheless, the Empire pamphlets formed an important contribution to the Victoria League’s post-war imperial education and propaganda work. The pamphlets’ explicit focus on schools showed a continued desire to reach children who would become future citizens of the Empire. A few themes were repeated throughout. European racial superiority and the success of state intervention in the colonies appeared frequently, though the pamphleteers were careful to avoid endorsing the latter course of action for the United Kingdom. Unsurprisingly, the pamphlets also painted a very positive picture of conditions for future immigrants, though they offered some cautionary words. The league’s purpose for their pamphlets was to educate British children on the Empire and to

208

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

allow them to consider possible immigration. This purpose was everpresent in much of their post-war educational efforts. Outside the school system, the Victoria League felt better able to combine imperial education with propaganda. For the most part, the league’s favoured means of imperial education remained public lectures and the re-circulation of books and newspapers. The league unsuccessfully explored a new medium, film. These efforts showed the league’s desire to make imperial education accessible and relevant to the post-war British public. Public lectures had long been a special preoccupation of the Victoria League. However, in the post-war period there was a major change of focus on the audience for such lectures. Before the First World War, the league had made a definite effort to reach workingclass audiences through public lectures. During the war, the league had organized a series of lectures in military camps and hospitals. The subjects of these lectures were not only imperial but were adapted to fit the interests of the audience. After the war, lectures on imperial topics were an important initiative and many lectures were delivered to women, particularly the members of women’s institutes. Founded during the war, the institutes were organized throughout the country and served as a way of spreading education and fellowship among British rural women on a non-party and non-sectarian basis.190 Between 1919 and 1931, 2,596 lectures were given, and 48.7 per cent were to Women’s Institutes.191 League lecturers found administrative advantages in having Women’s Institutes help arrange lectures for isolated rural areas.192 A speaker to the central council of the Victoria League in 1922 pointed out how the league and the institutes together helped country women look beyond their own locality and gain a greater knowledge of Britain, the Empire, and the world. Lady Jersey felt country women in the women’s institutes were helping to ensure the Empire’s continued existence through their interest in imperial lectures.193 The Victoria League also participated in university extension and public lectures. The university extension lectures were usually given through the University of London and featured literary and historical topics such as “The Age of Shakespeare” and “The History of London.”194 Other than at women’s institutes, public lectures were usually given at libraries and the headquarters of the Victoria League. The public lectures had a much greater variety of topics than the university extension lectures. Impe-

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

209

rial travelogues and historical topics were amongst the most popular public lectures. The Dominions were given significant attention, as were Borneo, British West Africa, New Guinea, and East Africa.195 During the round table discussions on India’s future from 1930 to 1931, there was a flurry of lectures on India.196 The lecture scheme was important for several reasons. First, it showed the league’s determination to spread imperial education beyond the school system to reach the general public. Second, the league’s work with the Women’s Institute revealed its concern with reaching British women. As an organization with a strong female membership, the Victoria League felt it had a special calling to spread its creed of Empire to British women. The political enfranchisement of British women between 1918 and 1928 made this initiative especially important. Unlike many other empire societies, the Victoria League made a strong effort to reach ordinary women. In fact, the changes to the franchise made women a higher priority for public lectures than had been the case before 1914. Finally, the topics chosen show the league’s effort to be current but not to restrict itself solely to wellknown imperial topics such as the Dominions. Another way of promoting imperial education was through the circulation of books and newspapers. The greatest demand for books came from remoter areas of Western Canada and were consciously regarded as a means of assimilating the diverse immigrant population into British culture.197 Katie Pickles has shown the efforts of the Canadian based iode (Imperial Order of the Daughters of Empire) to “Canadianize” the many new settlers in Canada’s West through the promotion of English language instruction and programs promoting a sense of British imperialism and Canadian national identity.198 The Victoria League’s efforts echoed that of the iode. In 1921 Archdeacon Lloyd of the Fellowship of the Maple Leaf made a special appeal for books for prairie schools, noting that many of these schools had “70–80 per cent non-British pupils.”199 The Victoria League fully supported this initiative. As Lady Jersey said: “Books are important because it appears that the population which is being provided for by these new [prairie] schools are not all British, [but are] about onethird American, and about one-third Europeans other than British.”200 Proper British books and imperially minded teachers were believed to have a huge impact on the “future loyalties and affinities of these embryo Canadian citizens.”201 In the Depression, books were even

210

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

believed to be important in fighting the large amounts of Bolshevik literature supposedly in circulation.202 Books were not only intended for children. A Saskatchewan correspondent noted that books were great treasures in isolated rural communities, forming “practically the only winter recreation” and “passed on from hand to hand.”203 Similar sentiments were expressed from isolated residents in Newfoundland outports.204 Cases of books were sent to a great many other parts of the Empire including Trinidad, New Zealand, Jamaica, India, and even Pitcairn island.205 British newspapers and magazines were also in great demand, though more for re-establishing cultural ties with isolated and lonely English settlers in the Empire than for assimilating newcomers. Nevertheless, occasionally Canadians voiced concern about the dangers of being overwhelmed by American newspapers.206 Other groups of overseas Britons were also taken care of. For example, the Victoria League made special arrangements for papers to be sent to workers with the Imperial War Graves Commission in France. Before the First World War, the league sent out 156,000 old newspapers and 3,200 magazines a year to the Empire. After the war, this practice continued, though numbers fell substantially to 35,000 per year. The Weekly Times, Punch, The Spectator, and Saturday Review were popular. In keeping with its effort to remain non-partisan, discussion arose within the Victoria League over the appropriateness of sending overtly partisan papers such as The Patriot under the newspaper scheme. The league decided that such papers were acceptable provided that they were accompanied by “other papers conveying a different point of view.”207 However, the league did have significant hesitations over sending strongly anti-imperialist newspapers.208 The league’s efforts to secure an imperial postage subsidy in support of this scheme were unsuccessful.209 Film was one new medium that the Victoria League attempted to exploit. Unfortunately, it turned out to be too difficult and expensive a medium for the Victoria League to use effectively. Less dynamic but less expensive media such as lantern slides remained popular. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the Victoria League soon recognized that cinema might be useful in schools and set up a committee to investigate its possibilities. This committee was suspended after a similar committee was set up by the National Union of Teachers and London Teachers’ Association, but the league retained its interest in the

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

211

new medium.210 In the coming years various branches of the Victoria League, including those at Crowborough, Yorkshire, and Ipswich, made special screenings of films for school children and the unemployed.211 The league also spoke enthusiastically about the opening of a permanent cinema for imperial films at the Imperial Institute.212 Other efforts were sporadic. The biggest problem seemed to be obtaining films about the Empire that had educational value at a reasonable cost.213 Film was never entirely abandoned as a means of imperial propaganda by the Victoria League in the 1920s, but was sufficiently complicated for its adoption to be limited.

the empire in daily life and changing conceptions of empire After the war, the Victoria League and the League of the Empire sought to re-define imperialism and make it a more constant presence in Britons’ daily lives. Rather than associate the Empire with aggression and acquisition, both organizations tried to craft a gentler image of the Empire revolving around domestic imagery and natural wonders. Both were involved with bringing Britons to the Empire itself, through Empire Settlement or imperial tours. Although not nearly as developed as other organizations such as the Primrose League, they did participate in campaigns such as Empire Shopping.214 In manifold ways, both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire hoped to make the Empire an unthreatening part of daily life. Both appeals were designed with British women in mind and marked a sharp break from the approach of militaristic patriotic organizations such as the National Service League. Other pre-war means of promoting the Empire, such as Empire Day, did continue into the interwar period but aroused deep suspicions amongst critics of imperialism and were given reduced prominence. An appreciation of Empire certainly continued to exist among the British public after the carnage of the First World War, albeit in a slightly modified form. John MacKenzie has taken issue with the old historical orthodoxy that the British public were generally indifferent to imperialism save for an aberrant outburst of jingoism in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. He similarly refutes the view that “by the 1920s, all residual imperial sentiment had been destroyed by the First World War.” MacKenzie’s wide-ranging book Propaganda and

212

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

Empire notes that not only did popular imperialism survive the First World War but it became less aggressive and xenophobic, instead becoming “a source of pride” with “a new economic significance.”215 John Darwin has also countered any presumptions historians might have on viewing the First World War “as a great watershed in British imperial history, separating the era of strength and success from the age of decline and dissolution.”216 Darwin has argued that the 1920s heralded the start of a Third British Empire based strongly on a redefinition of the status of the “White Dominions,” as well as forging new relationships with India and Ireland and creating a new Empire in the Middle East.217 It should be added that the post-war Empire was presented in a more domesticated and idealistic manner by the successful patriotic and imperialist leagues. Both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire insisted that their commitment to the Empire was in no way a threat. Theirs was a higher type of imperialism, both peaceful and practical. The Victoria League was most explicit in defining how it wished its imperialism to be understood. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the league emphasized how its sense of imperialism differed from that of other organizations. At the Annual General Meeting of 1922, the Dowager Countess of Jersey insisted that: “our aim has always been to be practical. We have not tried simply to express great imperial sentiments, no matter how deeply we felt them, but we have always tried to follow up the injunction, which really might have been the motto of the League, ‘Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might’.”218 The negative connotations that imperialism had for part of the British public after the war were understood and refuted by the Victoria League. A 1923 article entitled “True Imperialism” noted that the word imperialism was much disputed and had many meanings: “its use and misuse is a subject of special interest to many members of the Victoria League.” The league rejected an “imperialism of acquisition,” which it said predominated in the late nineteenth century and instead embraced a higher type of imperialism they called “the Imperialism of unification,” which had brought together one quarter of the earth’s inhabitants “into a single fellowship of peace.” This imperialism held before it “the ideal of a partnership of free peoples united by a common enjoyment of the institutions of political liberty.”219 The Victoria League often claimed that the British Empire was not held together

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

213

by force or dominated by militaristic values. A speech to the 1925 Annual Meeting by Leo Amery published in the Monthly Notes referred to the British Empire as “The Greatest Free Empire” and insisted that while despotic Empires such as the Tsarist Russian Empire had been held together by “tyranny” or “bureaucracy,” the British Empire was kept together by “affection and sympathy,” without compulsion with “every part free to go away if it liked.”220 A Labour Party member of the Victoria League stressed the non-militaristic nature of the Victoria League, noting its belief in “a mighty mission to perform as an Empire,” which would enlarge the bounds of freedom and add to the happiness of the human race.221 Another prominent Labour member of the league, Mrs Philip Snowden, noted that the British Empire was no longer regarded as being “against the rest of the World, but as an Empire for the rest of the world.”222 Lady Jersey argued that for Britain, “what is commonly called Militarism has played little, if any part in Empire building.” The Empire had grown and was supposedly retained by other stereotypically English characteristics such as “a spirit of enterprise, industry, a love of the sea and an instinct for fair play.”223 Of course, such rhetoric was one-sided and self-serving. From the context of the “white Dominions” such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, the league’s rhetoric, though exaggerated, might have had some validity. However, it obviously ignored the very real level of military force needed to maintain British rule over native populations in Africa and Asia. The anodyne words of the Victoria League failed to consider episodes in India such as the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Nevertheless, for domestic consumption the league’s rhetorical approach was significant. As an organization with a strong women’s presence, the league continually stressed women’s central role in the Empire and the importance of the idea of home. Only very recently has scholarship become more informed about the power of domesticated imagery to represent the British Empire. Angela Woollacott has noted the power of gender ideology for white colonial women “in order to establish a particular base of authority for themselves in the metropole, and a concept of feminine imperial loyalty.”224 Domestic metaphors were an extremely valuable weapon in the armory of popular imperialism in Britain after 1918. These metaphors could embed sometimes obscure imperial ideology into everyday life. Furthermore, they could bind the disparate and sometimes disruptive elements of

214

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

the Empire into the more welcoming concept of a family.225 Finally, domestication made imperialism more palatable to the post 1918 electorate, which had been severely scarred by the First World War and was even less attracted to masculinist and militaristic imperialist rhetoric than it had been before 1914. According to Lady Jersey, imperialism was maintained by “the power of the English to make homes and found families without ever ceasing to love the Motherland [from] whence they sprang, and this power is essentially due to their women.”226 In addition to making households, the Empire and domestic values were linked by the league in other ways. In a 1927 article, Lady Jersey noted her hope that Britain could serve as the “home” for all peoples of the Empire. It was the Victoria League’s purpose to make British settlers to the Empire and their descendants feel that when they visited Britain “they were truly coming home.”227 Domestic virtues were felt to be at the core of the imperial process. This led to a gentle rhetoric of popular imperialism well suited to the popular mood after 1918. Both leagues’ education and hospitality programs helped inculcate this vision. By creating direct links between British women and the Empire, the rhetoric of an imperial family was fleshed out. In its various activities, from sending books and newspapers overseas to sending introductions to prospective settlers, the Victoria League promoted the Empire as a form of family with Britain at its head. By simultaneously lauding women as the moral centres of families, married women’s own personal lives took on imperial significance. The League of the Empire was less explicit in directly attempting to redefine the meaning of imperialism. Most of its energies were instead directed into specific imperial programs such as teacher exchange. Linked to this preference, the league was far more likely to discuss developments in education than to tackle ideal definitions of imperialism. However, when it did contemplate the Empire, the focus was on peace and peacefully evolving institutions. The first tendency is most evident in a 1923 article appearing in the League of Empire Review entitled “The British Empire and World Peace.” The author, Sir Harry Reichel, argued that the British Empire was not naturally aggressive and that the Dominions as “democratic societies” were “eminently pacific.” Although ready to support the mother country when her “honour and safety are threatened,” they declined to be hurried into ill-calculated crises like the one between Britain and Turkey

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

215

at Chanak in 1922.228 This temperament meant that the Empire “makes for peace as well as for security.” The peacefulness of the British Empire gave it the characteristics of “a league of nations,” which settled disputes by agreement and not force. The example of the British Empire as a “smaller league of nations winning its peaceful way ... [was said to be] of priceless value.”229 The aging president of the League of the Empire, Sir Frederick Pollock, did not embrace Reichel’s vision but looked instead to an empire that achieved unity through shared constitutional law and notions of British liberties. Pollock rejected the older vision of a hierarchical Empire headed by Britain. With the rise of self-governing dominions with federal constitutions, imperial conferences, and separate representation at the League of Nations, the old paternalistic concept of imperial authority now existed only in the Crown Colonies. In their stead Pollock considered other bonds of Empire. He rejected any common bonds of nationality, language, or legal and judicial institutions, as much diversity existed throughout the Empire. In their place, Pollock pointed to shared constitutional law and enduring British liberties such as freedom of speech and security against despotic acts of government.230 In this way, Pollock was working out a new conception of imperial citizenship just as the more advanced theorists studied by Daniel Gorman were doing in the Edwardian period.231 For both Reichel and Pollock, martial values played no role. Certainly their shared vision of British liberties was robust and masculine but the traditional acquisitive imperial values that played a role in the league’s pre-war textbooks was not present. Like the Victoria League, the post-war League of the Empire adhered to a peaceful and evolutionary concept of imperialism that avoided the controversies of militarism. The Victoria League’s involvement with a hospitality scheme called “Settlers’ Welcome” for English emigrants was one of the major ways it attempted to make the Empire part of the daily lives of Britons. This scheme catered mostly to women and was of some importance in portraying the Empire as a friendly place for potential immigrants. Julia Bush, Lisa Chilton, and Katie Pickles have shown the importance of women’s emigration societies and imperialist organizations in fostering female emigration to the Empire.232 Although the Victoria League never solely focused on female emigration, its “Settler’s Welcome” program was a perfect illustration of its belief in domesticated imperialism in action.

216

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

The program had existed before the war in an embryonic form but only really got going with the arrival of the first ship carrying English dependents to Australia in January 1919. Soon after this, the Victoria League decided to work in conjunction with the government, its imperial branches, and the Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women [sosbw]. It offered several kinds of help, including finding temporary accommodation for arriving wives and maintaining an information bureau where husbands who had gone on ahead to the colonies could inquire about their wives’ arrival. It also met all ships arriving in the colonies and arranged board and lodging for those with no one able to meet them. Finally, it provided a regular means of contact with emigrating women, first providing them with letters of introduction and offering further help after their arrival.233 The Victoria League could not hope to meet all English women emigrating overseas. It depended on having women contact it in England before their departure and on receiving lists of the names of women going out under the British government’s oversea settlement committee initiatives or sosbw schemes.234 From 1920 onwards the Victoria League co-operated closely with the sosbw, receiving the information necessary for private introductions and holding joint conferences. The conferences discussed issues such as the need for adequate supervision during the long voyages to avoid the “demoralisation” of women settlers and the potential dangers they faced from agitators onboard ships.235 The Settlers’ Welcome program also included unmarried women who would then find work in their new homeland. That being said, the Victoria League was determined not to duplicate actual work done by other empire societies.236 It also insisted that it had not become “an emigration society” but existed to ease the transition for women to their new homes in the Empire.237 The Victoria League was there to meet women settlers when they landed, take them to tea, find out where they were going, give advice and help, and provide introductions and fellowship even after they had settled.238 During the 1920s, introductions were given to 9,817 women (many bringing families), most going to Australia and New Zealand.239 Women immigrants were greatly assisted by the Empire Settlement Act of 1922. This act helped 100,000 single British women go overseas to the Empire.240 The emigration of British women to Australia and the Dominions was a prime concern for the Victoria League after the war. It formed

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

217

a key way of putting the League’s domestic rhetoric on the meaning of Empire into concrete form. It also represented one of the largest versions of a maternalistic domesticated imperialism. The Victoria League quite literally took young women in hand and tried to make them worthy and moral “daughters of the Empire.” Furthermore, such women could help civilize the very masculine frontier environments in Australia and the Dominions.241 However, to be successful, these league initiatives faced several major problems. First, they had to cope with the fact that job opportunities in Australia after the war were not always plentiful. Most of the available work was as domestic help, though a limited number of job openings existed for teachers, governesses, and dressmakers. Victoria League meetings were peppered with references to high rates of unemployment for settlers. At a 1922 meeting, Lady Allardyce noted a strong feeling amongst the Australian Labour movement against letting settlers into the country.242 Labour circles in Britain also took a negative view of imperial migration as a way of “dumping” the unemployed overseas.243 Such realities jarred against the sunny words of encouragement published in the Victoria League’s Empire pamphlet series. The league also had to cope with the generally negative image that pervaded Britain about the lot of female settlers in the Empire. The popular press fanned public concern with cautionary tales of deserted wives and missing daughters.244 Even league articles and meetings were forced to acknowledge the isolation of frontier life in Australia and other imperial outposts such as the Canadian West. Surviving such rigours made settling Englishwomen “the real heroes of the bush ... who have made the settlement of Australia possible.”245 A final problem was the quality of some of the unmarried female settlers. In her study of single female emigration from Britain in the 1920s, Janice Gothard noted the general unpopularity of paid domestic labour for British women.246 Lisa Chilton has noted how the desire of imperialist organizations for respectable and educated British women to emigrate and work as domestic servants did not match the labour needs of the colonies or the career hopes of the British women in question.247 Criticisms reached the Victoria League from its Australian and New Zealand branches over the “type of Emigrants sent out” and their relative ignorance of conditions in their new country.248 In 1926 a New Zealand branch passed a resolution calling on the Government to take “greater care” in selecting future emigrants, as it seemed the Dominion would

218

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

“be called on to absorb a great many migrants from the Homeland in the near future.”249 In 1928 a letter from the Victoria League of West Australia cautioned that “some of the girl settlers were hardly worthy of the introductions which they carried.”250 At the end of 1927 the overseas settlement committee responded to these concerns by opening a joint British-Australian domestic training centre at Market Harborough in Leicestershire, which seemed to have some effect. Towards the end of the 1920s, more positive reports about the personal qualities of settlers began to filter back to the league. One Victoria League branch from South Australia noted that “the girls who had been trained at Market Harborough were found to be of a very superior type.”251 However, the vast majority of women who emigrated under the Empire Settlement Act did not benefit from any such training schemes.252 The coming of the financial crisis in Britain put a severe crimp on further emigration, leading to the closure of the Market Harborough Centre in 1929. The following year Canada and Australia withdrew resources to help fund emigration for household workers.253 In 1931 the sosbw’s government grant was severely cut.254 By 1932 the British government was offering assistance only for members of families joining relatives who were already settled in the Dominions.255 While the Victoria League devoted considerable time and effort to Settlers’ Welcome and to assisting unmarried women, other imperial campaigns, such as Empire Shopping, were less prominent. Empire Shopping, originally the brainchild of Leo Amery, the Conservative colonial secretary, was conceived as a way to increase British purchases of imperial goods without raising tariffs. The Empire Marketing Board, created in 1926, attempted to alter British trade patterns through the active promotion of imperial goods. British consumers were urged to purchase imperial products through shop-window displays, documentary films, leaflets, radio broadcasts, hoardings, and exhibitions. Over £1 million was spent on imperial marketing, with debatable results. Many of the ads highlighted the female shopper’s key role as an imperial consumer.256 At first glance, Empire Shopping seems a perfect fit for the Victoria League and a unique way of putting the Empire into Britons’ daily life. The Victoria League did take some interest in Empire Shopping. In 1925 it endorsed a book on Empire products for housewives entitled The Empire in the Home.257 In 1928 it agreed to host a lecture on the work of the Empire Marketing

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

219

Board. For the most part, the league’s overseas branches took the greatest lead in endorsing Empire Shopping weeks. The Victoria League in Britain was less forthright.258 The home branches’ hesitancy was due to their fear of appearing partisan. Empire Shopping was so linked to the Conservative government that to endorse it openly would be to abandon the Victoria League’s carefully constructed nonparty image.259 In 1927 the league’s Executive Committee considered adding a member of the Empire Marketing Board to a league committee. The league decided that he was welcome in his personal capacity but “should any question arise of participation by the v.l. in any controversial political question,” he would not be re-elected.260 The Primrose League had no such quibbles; it proved an unfailing ally of the Conservatives and eagerly helped promote Empire Shopping after 1922. Empire Shopping remained part of the arsenal of patriotic leagues with an active partisan agenda, but the Victoria League could not accommodate it. Unlike Empire Shopping, Settlers’ Welcome and the assistance given to single women fit very well into its domestic version and nonpartisan version of imperialism. Settlement in the Empire was not portrayed as a masculine virile activity. Instead, the Victoria League focused on the civilizing influence that would result from the presence of women. In addition, single women emigrating to the Empire did domestic work. The problem remained that with changing social conditions in Britain, such images were not always successful. Paid domestic labour was increasingly unpopular after the war and women did not seem any more eager to embrace it in the outposts of the Empire than they did at home.261 Married women leaving for overseas were faced with popular tales of abandonment and other personal tragedies. That being said, the Victoria League’s interest in both programs served as a practical way of making the Empire part of everyday life. Empire Day continued well into the interwar period. Both the Victoria League and the League of the Empire lent their assistance, although Empire Day was a much less important part of the post-war imperialism for both organizations than it had been before the war. As before, it was more important for the latter organization than the former. The Victoria League continued to lay wreaths on Queen Victoria’s statue in front of Buckingham Palace on Empire Day. It also worked with schools to sponsor Empire Day essay competitions and

220

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

helped children organize colourful pageants.262 However, for the most part it was de-emphasized. The Victoria League gave Empire Day much less prominence than its other imperial activities. The League of the Empire was more committed to the rituals of Empire Day, but after 1918 showed flagging enthusiasm. Like the Victoria League, the League of the Empire continued to sponsor Empire Day essay competitions with such topics as “the ideals of the British Empire” and “the interdependence of the British Empire from the point of view of trade, food products and defence.”263 The league prominently displayed royal messages commemorating Empire Day and continued to organize the Empire Day Parade in Hyde Park. The parade had many features associated with pre-war imperialism, including flag-waving and a march past by up to twenty-seven cadet contingents.264 The league also produced collections of imperial poetry and verse to be read on Empire Day and even proposed a “Service Celebration of England, the Mother of Nations’,” complete with English instrumentals, hymns, and recitations.265 Undeniably Empire Day remained popular after 1918. J.O. Springhall has argued that it peaked in popularity during the interwar period.266 The first Empire Day after the Armistice in 1919 was an elaborate affair with a ten-thousand voice imperial choir, attendance by the Royal Family, and an enormous crowd estimated at three hundred thousand.267 In that same year, over twenty-seven thousand schools, training colleges, and institutions made some sort of public celebration of Empire Day.268 John MacKenzie has noted that an estimated ninety thousand people “attended the [1925] Empire Day thanksgiving service at Wembley Stadium.” In 1929 the bbc made a special Empire Day broadcast. Throughout the interwar period, reports of the Empire Day movement claimed growth in the observance of Empire Day and the level of donations to it.269 It is important to balance this triumphalist rendition of Empire Day with some real difficulties it encountered. Many members of the Labour Party remained deeply suspicious of Empire Day and battled against it in local government. In 1934, after Labour gained control of the London County Council, it renamed the occasion Commonwealth Day. This change was intended to prevent the day from fostering “feelings of nationalism and racial superiority in the minds of children.” 270 The League of the Empire did not abandon Empire Day, but obviously felt the heat of criticism far more than the diehard

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

221

enthusiasts in the actual Empire Day movement. As early as 1923 the league noted the difficulties of keeping school celebrations “fresh in their interest,” and the need to postpone an Empire Day parade because of its coincidence with Whitsun holidays.271 The league even defended its continued belief in the ideals of patriotism. In its “Service Celebration of ‘England’,” the league noted patriotism could be “either a mean and vile thing, or a great and noble thing.” Similarly, it noted that although loyal to Empire, citizens were not blind to its faults nor did they have “Envy, hatred or contempt towards other nations.”272 By the early 1920s Empire Day had practically disappeared as a regular feature in League of the Empire publications and as a prominent concern. The league did continue its organization of the annual parade but this seemed to be more out of habit than anything else.273 What it did not do was reformulate Empire Day into a ceremony of remembrance for the dead of the Great War, as Jim English has shown.274 Education and teacher exchanges seemed far more important and presented a more acceptable face of the movement to the post-war British public. A final area in which the Victoria League and the League of the Empire offered a non-divisive vision of the Empire was through the publication of numerous flattering imperial profiles. These profiles displayed the natural beauty, culture, economic development, and institutions of the British Empire. Some profiles were contributions by children from the overseas branches. Others were written by visiting Englishmen and women; some even included poetry. The Victoria League published the largest number of these profiles. In its “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages,” it offered profiles contributed by children from a number of imperial outposts, including India, Newfoundland, Jamaica, and Canada.275 It also began a feature in which entire issues of Monthly Notes would be devoted to profiling areas of the Empire with a League branch. For example, issues were devoted to Canterbury in New Zealand, Queensland in Australia, Jamaica, Maritzburg in Natal, and even English areas such as Essex and East Suffolk.276 Selections included pieces on local history, culture, and nature. Other imperial profiles were less structured, with accounts of engineering marvels such as the massive irrigation scheme in the Western Australian goldfields and of women’s daily life in South Africa.277 The League of the Empire provided many fewer imperial profiles. Its efforts were short articles on imperial beauty spots that did not

222

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

include any detailed discussion of imperial history or institutions.278 Although its imperial profiles of actual geographic locations of the Empire were limited, the League of the Empire did provide profiles of imperial culture, particularly poetry. The league profiled a series of “Poets of the Empire,” including the soldier poets of the First World War as well as Kipling and Sir Henry Newbolt.279 The profiles were yet another way in which both leagues promoted the Empire using a “soft sell” technique. The personal and local approach to the Empire made the profiles a form of light reading. Partisan and divisive political topics and presentations of past imperial and military glories were entirely avoided. In varying degrees, the League of the Empire and the Victoria League embraced a vision of Empire that eschewed militaristic values or partisan campaigns. Their very language was rife with domesticity and women were presented as key figures. Both leagues attempted to make the Empire part of the daily life of Britons through appeals for emigration and imperial profiles. Pre-war rituals like Empire Day also played an ever-diminishing part in the overall activities of both organizations. Activities such as Empire Shopping, which had strong partisan political implications, were also minimized. In these ways, both organizations were able to present a non-threatening vision of the Empire to the post-war British public. Both leagues clearly were diminished from their pre-war days but still continued into the 1920s and were strong enough to face the rigours of the economic downturn after 1929. It is perhaps no coincidence that both groups, after evolving with the changes in the British Empire following the First World War, were equally able to adapt to the coming of the Commonwealth and continue to exist even today.

conclusion The post-war survival of the Victoria League and the League of the Empire was a triumph of domesticated imperialism. While it is undeniable that both organizations could not garner mass support, they managed to endure into the 1920s by articulating a love for Empire that was neither militaristic nor bombastic. Instead, their vision of the Empire was sentimental, personal, and even homey. Both organizations concentrated on traditional activities such as education and hospitality, in which pre-war female members probably would have felt

The Triumph of Domesticated Imperialism?

223

comfortable. Both remained non-partisan and avoided involvement in many of the divisive imperial political battles of the day including tariff reform, the creation of the Irish Free State, and Indian reform. Both abandoned any specific proposals for major structural change to the Empire. In the greater political world, the Victoria League and the League of the Empire were quietist in the extreme. The traditionalism and reticence of the leagues did not mean they were stagnant. The end of the First World War brought immense changes to British society with the partial enfranchisement of women, the growing power of the labour movement, and calls for greater imperial autonomy. The Victoria League acknowledged the political changes the war had wrought through its extended outreach to the Labour Party. It also undertook new initiatives such as hospitality for the students from Malaya, which it hoped would have long-term benefits in a changing Empire. The League of the Empire withdrew into itself and abandoned its wartime commitment to “Imperial Studies.” Similarly, it jettisoned its hope for a grand imperial educational federation. Instead, the League of the Empire concentrated on more practical imperial institutional arrangements such as teacher exchange. It also showed a new interest in discussing educational methods and their impact on greater British society. In all of these activities, both organizations hoped to increase the bonds of Empire by creating greater personal ties between teachers, students, and ordinary citizens of the Empire. While the actual impact of such ties may be hard to measure, they did affect thousands of ordinary people. In their latest versions, the Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship and the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers attempt to cultivate such ties even today. The Victoria League and the League of the Empire aimed at a particular niche in the world of popular imperialism and achieved a fair deal of success. Their aims were not grandiose or overtly political. Unlike the National Service League they did not wish to create an entire nation of trained citizens ready to defend Britain and the Empire. The Victoria League and the League of the Empire were more modest and, in their limited way, more successful. British loyalty to the idea of the Empire and later Commonwealth survived the First World War and endured in the 1920s and well into the twentieth century. While this general evolution is acknowledged by historians, the activity of the manifold small organizations that helped to make this

224

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

condition possible is not. The Victoria League and the League of the Empire may be only general footnotes in the history of interwar Britain, but their modest achievement did help to shape Britain’s political culture in the interwar period. It is only through examining the adaptation and evolution of popular imperialism on the micro level that the continuities of interwar Britain begin to make sense.

Conclusion

Britain underwent substantial changes between 1914 and 1932. In 1914 women lacked the vote, the Liberal Party was in power with Labour as its minor partner, Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom, and free trade reigned supreme. By 1932 the electorate had quadrupled and Britain had become a mass democracy. In addition, the Labour Party had formed two governments and the Liberal Party was marginalized. Ireland had achieved dominion status and was on its way towards becoming a republic. Finally, the Ottawa agreements had undermined the supremacy of free trade. Although the post-war world was much altered, recognizable remnants from the pre-war world remained. The end of the war may well have ushered in a new cultural age of modernism.1 British pacifism was a major force in the interwar period, with strong links to evangelical Christianity, socialism, and the Labour Party.2 British distaste for militarism and patriotic excess was unmistakable after 1918. Nevertheless, the First World War did not sweep away all the previous signposts of traditional patriotism, including two of the three patriotic and imperialist leagues in this study. Historians, particularly of the left, have always had problems explaining the persistence of traditionalism and patriotism in British society.3 The astute use of traditionalism has been cited as a reason for the strength of modern Conservatism, as in the use of “Englishness” as a cultural touchstone by the interwar leader, Stanley Baldwin.4 However, patriotism need not be studied in a directly political context only. The forces of organized patriotism and imperialism were part of a continuity within British political culture from the war into the post-

226

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

war period. The war made certain forms of patriotic exuberance unacceptable and led to the demise of one of the larger groups in this study, the National Service League. The military help provided by the Empire demonstrated the concreteness of imperial unity. This help also raised overly high hopes, especially in the League of the Empire, for future imperial co-operation. But the war also placed huge demands on existing patriotic organizations. The Victoria League and others responded with hospitality, education, philanthropic, and civic welfare work. Finally, the war created a plethora of competing patriotic organizations and drained away the membership of existing patriotic groups into the workforce, armed forces, and other causes. Thus, the First World War was a crucible for Edwardian patriotic organizations. Those that emerged intact from the war’s fiery demands were forced to adapt to survive. The National Service League proved incapable of adapting. Its narrow focus on a single legislative goal gave it little else to accomplish once that goal had been achieved. Its divisive reputation before the war and association with militarism made it an unacceptable partner to other patriotic and imperial organizations. Its aging male leadership isolated it from current developments. It was handicapped by its lack of experience in activities such as philanthropy, which were necessary for survival in the post-war world. The National Service League tried to evolve to meet the needs of the war. Some of its members advocated reasons for its continued existence in the post-war period. Nevertheless, it suspended its operations in wartime and never reemerged. The National Service League’s experience illustrated the perils of rigidity for patriotic organizations and the limits to the postwar public’s acceptance of organized patriotism. The League of the Empire reduced its grand imperial expectations as a result of the First World War. Before the war, it had fond hopes for both imperial educational federation and the introduction of imperial history into the school curriculum. It sponsored numerous pre-war conferences to achieve the former goal and a series of school textbooks to achieve the latter. The enthusiastic imperial response to the war raised high hopes that were dashed later. The League of the Empire proved reasonably efficient at philanthropic and civic welfare work, even publishing and distributing commemorative Shakespeare volumes to wounded soldiers. However, such work proved only a temporary expedient. By the end of the war, it was evident that the

Conclusion

227

league’s grandiose pre-war hopes could not be achieved. Some of its public displays of patriotism, such as Empire Day, survived the war, though they were less important for the league. Its main energies were devoted elsewhere. After the war, the league found a comfortable, if more restricted, place for itself with its program of teacher exchange. The leading participants in this program, female elementary teachers, praised the program effusively. The league also took a post-war interest in pedagogical issues, especially the provision of education for the poor. The financial crisis of 1931 cut back the League of the Empire’s teacher exchange program. Nevertheless, in 1932 it remained an established presence in post-war Britain. In some ways the Victoria League made the best adjustment to the war. Although much smaller than the National Service League, its size did not hinder its resilience. Its non-partisan reputation and involvement in uncontroversial activities such as education and hospitality put it in an excellent position for both the war and the post-war period. During the war, the Victoria League easily expanded to embrace a host of new activities ranging from lectures to hospitality for imperial soldiers and nurses and the publication of wartime propaganda pamphlets. Although not all of the league’s branches remained active in the war, it adjusted relatively easily and approached the peace without trepidation. The post-war Victoria League continued along its prewar path without significant problems. Its major adjustment was dropping its pre-war interest in public health and the Empire. The league made a major outreach effort to figures in the Labour Party and continued its work in education and hospitality. Unlike some other patriotic and imperial organizations, it was open to imperial citizens of non-British stock and invested significant resources in a special hospitality program for students from Malaya. The league also tried to promote hospitality for visiting imperial tourists and for emigrants to the outreaches of the Empire. Much of its rhetoric promoting these ends used an idiom of domesticated imperialism that centred on metaphors of home, family, and kinship. Through its avoidance of political controversy and its relatively innocuous activities, the Victoria League survived the war without much difficulty and easily continued into the post-war period. Careful study of these three patriotic and imperialist leagues during the First World War and the 1920s reveals an important and often overlooked continuity within British political culture. Patriotic and

228

Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War

imperialist organizations remained active forces into the post-war period, though they emphasized different characteristics from those displayed before the war. Militaristic values were unacceptable. Unless a patriotic group was actively involved in politics, anti-socialism was similarly unworkable. The formula for success seemed to be the ability to adjust to different wartime pressures. Imperial autonomy, the enfranchisement of women, the growing strength of the Labour Party and the labour movement all had to be recognized. Another key was the active mobilization of female members and the promotion of a kinder, gentler version of imperialism centred on domestic metaphors. With these factors addressed, patriotic and imperialist leagues from the pre-war period continued to a play a vibrant if reduced role in post-war British society. The leagues may not have had any decisive impact on the tumult of the post-war years. However, their presence reveals the elasticity of patriotic organizations and the continuities between war and post-war that lay beneath the emerging modernities of the brave new world of the 1920s.

Notes

abbreviations in notes Lord Curzon Papers. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library: cpio League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London: lect Lord Milner Papers, Bodleian Library: mp Rhodes Trust Archives, Rhodes House, Oxford University: rt Lord Roberts Papers, National Army Museum: lr Royal Commonwealth Society Collections, Cambridge University: rcs Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women Papers. The Women’s Library, London Metropolitan University: sosbw Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship, Bayswater, London: vlcf

introduction 1 Marwick, The Deluge. 2 Perhaps the most striking examples of this tendency are to be found in Summers, “Militarism in Britain before the Great War,” 104–23; Summers, “The Character of Edwardian Nationalism: Three Popular Leagues,” 68–97; Coetzee, For Party or Country. This pre-1914 focus continues in recent articles such as Johnson, “The Liberal Party and the Navy League.” 3 Beddoe, Back to Home and Duty; Braybon, Women Workers in the First World War: The British Experience; Braybon and Summerfield, Out of the Cage; Kent, Making Peace. 4 De Groot, Blighty.

230

Notes to pages 4–8

5 Gregory, The Last Great War, 5. 6 Eksteins, The Rites of Spring, ch. 9; Caedel, Pacifism in Britain, 1914–45; Mosse, Fallen Soldiers, 196–8. 7 Levine, ed., Gender and Empire, 1. 8 Scott, Gender and the Politics of History, 42. 9 Procida, Married to the Empire; Burton, Burdens of History; Midgley, ed., Gender and Imperialism. 10 Streets, Martial Races; Hall and Rose, eds, At Home with the Empire; Sinha, Colonial Masculinity. 11 The current state of gender studies of British imperialism has been well surveyed in both Woollacott, Gender and Empire, and Levine, ed., Gender and Empire. 12 Black, Redefining British Politics, 2–4. 13 McKibbin, Classes and Cultures, 96–8. 14 McCarthy, “Parties, Voluntary Associations and Democratic Politics,” 892. 15 McCarthy, “Service Clubs, Citizenship and Equality,” 531. 16 Scott, Gender and Politics of History, esp. ch. 2. 17 Pedersen, “The Future of Feminist History.” She elaborates on how political history can be enriched through gender history in Pedersen, “What is Political History Now?”, 36–56. 18 On the British Brothers League, which existed from 1902 to 1905, see Lebzelter, Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918–1939, 7–8; Lebzelter, “AntiSemitism,” 88–105; Feldman, Englishmen and Jews, 282, 284–5, 288. 19 Pugh, The Tories and the People 1880–1935. 20 Adams, “The National Service League,” 53–74; Summers, “Militarism in Great Britain before the Great War”; Summers, “The Character of Edwardian Nationalism”; Hendley, “Help us to Secure, a Strong, Healthy, Prosperous and Peaceful Britain,” 261–88; Stearn, “The Last Glorious Campaign.” 21 For a discussion of conscription and party politics, see: Gollin, Proconsul in Politics; Jordan, “The Politics of Conscription”; and Adams and Poirier, The Conscription Controversy. For discussion of ideological repercussions of the conscription debate on the governing Liberals, see Mackie, “The Conscription Controversy,” and Wilson, The Downfall of the Liberal Party. For implications of conscription on manpower questions and the army in general, see Grieves, The Politics of Manpower; Beckett, “The British Army 1914–18”; and Beckett, A Nation in Arms. 22 Adams and Poirier, “The Conscription Controversy,” does not contain much material on the league during the war. An older work, Hayes, Conscription Conflict, contains slightly more but is not a study of the league per se.

Notes to pages 8–12

231

23 Julia Bush has written extensively on the pre-1914 Victoria League but has only a limited discussion of the post-1914 league in Bush, Women Against the Vote; other references to the post-1914 league can be found in MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 152–3; 163; 165; 167. 24 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, chs 2, 4. 25 MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 155–6, 163, 165, 169, 232; Cowper, “British Education,” 326–8. 26 Greenlee is best on the pre-war League of the Empire. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, chs 1, 2.

chapter one 1 For an interesting discussion of pressure groups, see Wootton, Pressure Groups in Britain 1720–1970. For a treatment of twentieth-century groups, see Gordan and Richardson, Government and Pressure Groups in Britain. The most recent account of the Anti-Corn Law League is Pickering and Tyrrell, The People’s Bread. 2 On the intemperate tone of the Edwardian conscription movement, see Morris, The Scaremongers; Hynes, The Edwardian Turn of Mind; Caroline Playne, The Pre-War Mind in Britain; and “Invasion Scares, Conscription and Home Defence” in Hendley, “The Conscription Movement.” 3 Adams, “The National Service League,” 62; Hendley, “The Conscription Movement,” 20–1. 4 Mills, ed., Speeches of Field Marshal Lord Roberts; Roberts, A Nation in Arms, Lord Roberts’s Message to the Nation, and Lord Roberts’s Campaign Speeches. 5 Roberts’s key phrase at Manchester concerned Germany’s aggressive and opportunistic foreign policy. Roberts claimed “Germany strikes when Germany’s hour has struck,” and complimented it as a “a commendable policy.” Such forthrightness led his opponents to accuse him of poisoning AngloGerman relations. Roberts’s comments were particularly distressing to Liberal pundits for ideological reasons and also because relations seemed to have improved or at least become less heated after the Agadir crisis of 1911. See Lord Roberts’s Message to the Nation; and Kennedy, The Rise of the AngloGerman Antagonism, 441–63. 6 James, Lord Roberts. 7 For change in war poetry and literature from the early days of the war onwards, see Hynes, A War Imagined. 8 “Notes on British Policy at the outbreak of the 1st World War Aug–Oct 1914,” Englemere, Ascot, Berks. 5 August 1914. lr. Accession Number 7101-23-203-2.

232

Notes to pages 12–14

9 In a post-war recollection, the secretary of the National Service League between 1909 and 1914, R.J.K. Mott, noted that “When the war broke out “he came into the office on the morning of Tuesday August 4th – looking far younger than I had ever known him, and with the light of battle in his eyes – and said: ‘Well; Mott, this is the end of the National Service League!,’ ” R.J.K. Mott papers, National Army Museum, Reference 9101-96-3 (1–3). 10 “When all his prophecies of the German peril have come true, when all his exhortations to make ready for that peril are demonstrated to have been necessary and just, he has uttered no word of self-congratulation on his own insight, no word of reproof to those who met his reasoning with arrogance and scorn.” “Lord Roberts,” The Times, 16 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number – 7101-23-136-1. Bound Obits, vols. 1, 14. 11 R.J.K. Mott papers, National Army Museum, Reference 9101-96-3 (1–3). 12 Lord Kitchener to Lord Roberts, 15 September 1914. R.J.K. Mott papers, National Army Museum, Reference 9101-96-22. 13 National Service League, Report and Balance Sheet for the Year Ending March 31, 1915, presented to Thirteenth Annual Meeting on 16 June 1915, 5–10, 32. 14 Roberts, The Supreme Duty of the Citizen, 2, 18, 19, 21–2, 26–8, 32. 15 “Message from Field Marshal Earl Roberts, v.c. o.m. to the Children of the Empire,” (League of the Empire, 1914); “Lord Roberts’s Message to the Children of the Empire,” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail.’ December 1914, no. 95: 757, 759. 16 National Service League, The Causes of the Great War, passim. Hoover War Collection, Stanford University. 17 “Speech given at Ascot,” 10 August 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. 18 Lord Roberts to Lady Edward Cecil, 10 March 1910; 13 June 1910; 3 July 1910; 14 July 1910; 5 August 1910; 16 December 1910; “Memorandum by Lady Edward Cecil, July 1910,” ms Violet Milner 56, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. 19 For an overview of the substantial historiography on women in the First World War, see Grayzel, Women and the First World War. 20 “Lord Roberts’s speech to Canadian contingent at Salisbury Plain,” 24 October 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. Roberts claimed the war gave the opportunity for a display of imperial cooperation in which Canadians and other soldiers from the self-governing

Notes to pages 15–16

21

22 23

24

25

26

27 28 29

30

233

Dominions would be fighting “side by side” with men from the Regular Army and the Indian Army. Bound speeches, 113. On Roberts’s earlier praise of the martial races, see Streets, “Military Influence in Late Victorian and Edwardian Popular Media,” 231–56; Streets, Martial Races, 132–42. “Speech at Englesmere, Ascot, Berks.” 17 October 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. Bound Speeches, 106–8. On Indianization of the officer corps of the Indian Army and Lord Roberts’s longstanding opposition to it, see Sharpe, “The Indianisation of the Indian Army,” 47–52; Sundaram, “‘Martial’ Indian Aristocrats,” 415–39; and Sundaram, “Reviving a ‘Dead Letter’,” 45–97. “Speech at Englesmere, Ascot, Berks.,” 17 October 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. Bound Speeches, 104, 110; James, Lord Roberts, 475–8. Heather Streets has shown that the vast proportion of higher administrative and military positions in late Victorian India were held by Irishmen (nearly all of whom were Protestants). Streets, Martial Races, 159. Adams, “Field Marshal Earl Roberts: Army and Empire,” 30, 41–2, 52–3, 68. Rodner, “Leaguers, Covenanters, Moderates: British support for Ulster, 1913–1914,” 68–85. “Notes for a speech,” 24 August 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. Bound speeches, 50. “Notes for a speech,” August 24, 1914. lr. Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number 7101-23-126-12. Bound Speeches, 53–6. Lord Roberts to the Rt Hon. H. Asquith (then staying at Vice Regal Lodge, Dublin). 21 September 1914. National Army Museum, Lord Roberts Papers. Ms Private Letter Books. Accession Number 7101-23-125-3. 4 January 1914 to 3 November 1914. Bound Letters, 103–104. Discovering the exact number of Irish enlistments is difficult. According to Henry Harris, the problem lies in the statistics then kept by the British Army, which did not clearly distinguish between the English, the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh. In addition, considerable numbers of Irishmen enlisted in England, where they had emigrated in search of work. Harris estimates that in August 1914 42,259 Irishmen were already serving in the Regular Army or were regular reservists. A total of 46,000 Irishmen enlisted in Kitchener’s New Armies in 1914. Figures compiled by the Irish RegistrarGeneral indicate that between 15 August 1915 and 15 October 1916 some 130,241 men of military age in Ireland enlisted, of whom 51 per cent came from Ulster. Note that throughout the war, Ireland had a relatively small

234

31

32

33

34

35 36 37

38

39

40

41

Notes to pages 16–18

male population of military age, because of longtime emigration to the United States and the colonies as well as to England during the war for construction work. Harris, The Irish Regiments in the First World War, 26–32; For the entire period of the war, Ireland raised three divisions, the 10th, 16th, and 36th, as well as traditional Irish regiments. In total some 72 Irish battalions served in the First World War. Johnstone, Orange, Green & Khaki. Lord Roberts to Captain White. 22 October 1914. National Army Museum, Lord Roberts Papers. Ms Private Letter Books. Accession Number 7101-23125-3. 4 January 1914 to 3 November 1914. Bound Letters, 113–14. Lord Roberts to Captain Corballis, undated [September-October 1914.]; lr. Ms Private Letter Books. Accession Number 7101-23-125-3. Bound Letters, 124. Lord Roberts to John Redmond, 15 August 1914. lr. ms Private Letter Books. Accession Number 7101-23-125-3. 4 January 1914 to 3 November 1914. Bound Letters, 76. Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, vol. LXVIII. 5th series, (1914–15), 17 November 1914, 342; “A Great Irish Soldier,” The Times, 18 November 1914. lr. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. Hendley, “Social Arguments,” 261–88. On Earl Haig’s 1928 funeral, see Todman, “‘Sans peur et sans reproche,” 1083–106. After his sensational speech at Manchester in 1912, The Nation said the following of Roberts: “He is a mere Jingo in opinion and character, and he interprets the life and interests of this nation and this Empire by the crude lusts and fears which haunt the unimaginative soldier’s brain,” The Nation, 30 October 1912, as quoted in Playne, 154. The Observer, 15 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23136-1. Bound Obits, vol. 1, 3–4. The Times, 16 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23136-1 Bound Obits, vol. 1, 14. Parliamentary Debates of the House of Lords, vol. 18. 5th series (1914–15). 5 George V. 17 November 1914, 62–3; “House of Lords, Tuesday, November 17,” The Times, 18 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23136-1. Bound Obits, vol. 1, 113–14. “Pulpit References,” The Times, 16 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cut-

Notes to pages 18–20

42

43

44 45

46 47 48

49

50

51 52

235

tings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. Bound Obits, Vol. 1, 23. Parliamentary Debates of the House of Lords, vol. 18, 5th series (1914–15) 5 George V. 17 November 1914. 60–61; “House of Lords, Tuesday, November 17,” The Times, 18 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23136-1. Bound Obits, Vol. 1, 113. “A Londoner,” “To-night’s Gossip,” The Evening News and Evening Mail, [n.d.] lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. Bound Obits, vol. 1, 109–10. Francis, “The Domestication of the Male?” 643. Adams, “The National Service League,” 62. Caroline Playne claimed that the “National Service League carried its propaganda into every nook and corner of England.” Playne, 151. Hayes, Conscription Conflict, 178–9. For more background on F.S. Oliver, see Pollard, “Sunset or Dawn?” 387–410. Oliver, Ordeal by Battle, xxii–xxiv, 332–49. Tim Travers has noted that the traditional attitudes among the Edwardian Officer Corps closely echoed values learned in England’s public schools, such as “group loyalty, deference and obedience to the accepted hierarchy, an opposition to politics and intellectual matters and an emphasis on self assurance and character.” Travers, The Killing Ground, 5. To be fair to Roberts, when he was Commander in Chief, he did try to moderate some of the more mindless elements of the culture of the British officer corps, such as their addiction to polo. See Riedi, “Brains or Polo?” 250–3. The Evening News and Evening Mail, Wednesday, 18 November 1914. lr. 4 volumes, press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. Bound Obits, vol. 1, 132–3. Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, vol. LXVIII, 5th series (1914–15) 17 November 1914, 357; “A Roberts Memorial,” The Times, 17 November 1914. The Pall Mall Gazette, 17 November 1914. National Army Museum, Lord Roberts Papers. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. Lord Roberts’s Workshops were an initiative by the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society. In the last few months of his life, Roberts expressed an interest in setting up a network of workshops that would train and employ disabled soldiers of the First World War. After his death, this initiative was undertaken as a memorial. Within forty years, it had established factories in London,

236

53

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69 70 71 72

Notes to pages 21–5

Bristol, Brookwood, Colchester, Edinburgh, Dundee, Inverness, and Belfast. These factories produce a variety of furniture including bedsteads, divans, and decorated lacquer work. By this time over 3,500 disabled men had passed through the workshops and had become skilled enough workmen to gain employment in the private sector. Drummond, “The Forces Umbrella,” 426–9. For a study of the cult of heroism surrounding Nelson, see Jenks, Naval Engagements. For his funeral, see Jenks, “Contesting the Hero,” 422–53; Wellington’s Funeral, see Sinnema, “Anxiously Managing Mourning,” 30–60. “Earl Roberts’s Funeral,” Evening Standard and St. James Gazette, 17 November 1914. lr. Accession Number 7101–23–136–1. “The People’s Farewell: Enormous Crowds Line the Streets,” The Pall Mall Gazette, 19 November 1914. lr. Accession Number 7101-23-136-1. “Lord Roberts’s Warnings to the Nation,” “Other Striking Points from his Speeches,” Primrose League Gazette 22, no. 62 [ns] December 1914, 1. Adams, Arms and the Wizard, 31, chs 2–4. Gollin, Proconsul in Politics. Rose, Curzon. The best recent biography of Curzon is Gilmour, Curzon. Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities, 206. Gollin, 255–6. “Unfair Methods: Lord Milner’s Call for Leadership,” The Times, 24 May 1915 as quoted in Gollin, 268. “Minutes of National Service League Meeting,” 27 April 1915. cpio Mss Eur f 112/168, 1–2. “Minutes of National Service League Meeting,” 27 April 1915. cpio Mss Eur f 112/168, 3–4. “Minutes of National Service League Meeting,” 27 April 1915. cpio Mss Eur f 112/168, 4–5. For a discussion of the organizing of a recruiting campaign, see Osborne, The Voluntary Recruiting Movement, and Douglas, “Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War,” 564–85. “Secretary’s Report of Meeting of General Council of National Service League, January 27, 1916,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Wilson, The Myriad Faces of War, 166–8. Osborne, 17–18. Coulton, A Strong Army in a Free State; The Case for Compulsory Military Service; Conscription?; and True Liberalism and Compulsory Military Service. Coulton, Workers and War, passim. Meath, 12th Earl, Memories, 242–53.

Notes to pages 25–8

237

73 “The Birth of Empire Day,” Everywoman’s World, May 1916; “Origin of Empire Day,” Mail and Empire, 25 May 1926; “Mrs. Fessenden – Founder of Empire Day,” Hamilton Spectator, May 1926. All quoted in The Founding of Empire Day, 5–9. 74 Reese, The History of the Royal Commonwealth Society, 154–55; Meath, 12th Earl, Brabazon Potpourri, 92–3; The Times, 12 October 1929; United Empire, 21 (1930): 340. 75 Springhall, “Lord Meath, Youth and Empire,” 97–111; Meath, Memories, 262–3, 284–95. 76 A few of the more pointed letters to the editor include “Compulsory Service,” Morning Post, 31 July 1915, 6; One letter writer laments the death of Lord Roberts: “If Lord Roberts had been spared to us a little longer he would have had a following that would have overwhelmed any opposition. His loss is almost irreparable.” “The Need for National Service,” Morning Post, 13 August 1915, 6. 77 Maude, “The Case for Volunteers,” 1–12; Houghton, “Free Service or Conscription,” 610–17; Dewar, “An Individualist’s Plea,” 13–18; Blake, “Compulsory Service,” 808–13; Battine, “Wanted: A Military Constitution,” 803–15. Kinloch-Cooke, “The National Register and After,” 792–807; Roberts, “True National Service,” 985–96. 78 Coulton, “The Volunteer Spirit,” 19–29. 79 Roscoe, Conscription in the Bible, passim. Oddly enough, Roscoe did not discuss the existence of ancient Israel’s levee en masse in any detail beyond quoting Numbers I (2–3). 80 Skrine, Wanted!: A Citizen Army and Navy, passim. 81 Meakin, Enlistment or Conscription?, 9–12, 13, 18–27, 60–5, 84, 106–8, 113. Lord Roberts’s message on the cover reads “Arm and prepare to quit yourselves like men for the time of your ordeal has come.” 82 F.S. Oliver to Sir Frederick Macmillan, 23 March 1916 and 24 May 1916. Mss Add 55 027. Macmillan Archives, British Library. vol. XXCLII. fols. 111–12; 118–19. 83 Oliver, Ordeal by Battle, 374. 84 F.S. Oliver to Sir Frederick Macmillan, 29 September 1916. Mss Add 55027. Macmillan Archives. vol XXCLII. fols. 123–4. British Library. 85 The National Service League’s official policy before the First World War was for compulsory military training for home defence only, though some of its early supporters seemed to lean towards continental-style conscription. Under Lord Roberts’s tenure as president, the league was firmly tied to compulsory military training for home defence only. The league’s oppo-

238

86

87

88

89 90 91 92 93 94

95

96 97

Notes to pages 28–31

nents always feared it had larger plans for full-scale continental conscription. Though this was not the case in peacetime, suspicions were raised by the league’s looseness with the terms “compulsory military training” and “compulsory military service” and the reputation of some of its more hardline followers. See Hendley, “Social Arguments,” 266–8, 279–80, 282–7. Roland, The Future of Militarism, 24; on 27 November 1914 F.S. Oliver wrote to his brother: “I daresay I am quite wrong, but my impression is that this war is not going to be the end of militarism, but will on the contrary inaugurate a period of militarism which will last out your life and mine, and that is why I think the best thing my boys can do for their country is to go into the army as they wish to do.” Gwynn, ed., The Anvil of War, 60. Hearnshaw, The Ancient Defence of England; Hearnshaw, “The Ancient Defence of England: Foundations of National Service – The Freeman’s Privilege,” Morning Post, 20 August 1915, 6. Hearnshaw, Freedom in Service. In addition to his reprinted piece, Hearnshaw included pieces defining “liberty” in such a way as to reconcile it with compulsory military service; an essay on the condemnation of passive resistance; and an interesting piece looking at changing views of the State. Horsfall, National Service and the Welfare of the Community. Harrison, “Thomas Coghlan Horsfall,” 297–314. For an older account, see Reynolds, “Thomas Coghlan Horsfall,” 52–60. Horsfall, The Uplifting of the Nation. Ibid., 19–20. Ibid., 31–5, 40. Switzerland was mentioned in the National Service League’s seminal work on conscription: Shee, The Briton’s First Duty, 176–7, and in Coulton, True Liberalism and Compulsory Service, 27–8. It is the major focus of Coulton, A Strong Army in a Free State, and Favre, A Model for a National Militia. Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1918, Sixteenth Annual General Meeting, 24 July 1918. mp. Mss Milner dep. 156/25. Microfilm x.films 9/57. Hereafter referred to as “Sixteenth Meeting.” “National Service: Manifesto to the Country,” Morning Post, 16 August 1915, 6. These figures included F.J.C. Hearnshaw, Major General Sir Reginald Talbot, and A.G. Rickards. Morning Post, 20 August 1915, 5; Morning Post, 23 August 1915, 4. At the penultimate meetings of the league in 1917, Talbot was a member of the Representative Council and Rickards was a member of the General Council. Hearnshaw was not on the council but continued to write pamphlets supporting conscription.

Notes to pages 31–6

239

98 National Service League Annual Meeting of 16 June 1915, The Times, 17 June 1915 as quoted in Gollin, 276. 99 Amery to Milner, 2 August 1915 in Gollin, 276–7. 100 Milner to Curzon, 15 August 1915. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 166. 101 He broke it down exactly in the following manner: Decided (40 per cent as “hotly in favour” and 5 per cent “immutably opposed”); Undecided (25 per cent as “favourably disposed but waiting for a sign from the Govt.” and 30 per cent “disliking it but prepared to swallow the pill ... if the Govt. says it is essential to salvation”). Milner to Curzon, 15 August 1915. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 166. 102 Milner to Curzon, 15 August 1915. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 166. 103 Gollin, 278. 104 Gollin, 279. 105 National Service League, Occasional Notes, September 1915, 5. 106 Koss, Lord Haldane, passim. 107 Occasional Notes, 11–12. 108 Ibid., 12–13. 109 Gollin, 283. 110 Memorandum 29 August 1915 as quoted in Gollin, 283–4. 111 Such a debate was held in Nottingham in March 1912 and was published in its entirety as a pamphlet: Coulton, Compulsory Military Service: Should Working Men Support It? 112 Speeches delivered at Bristol on 14 February 1913; Leeds, 18 April 1913; and Glasgow, 6 May 1913. In Roberts, Lord Roberts’s Campaign Speeches, 9, 35–6, 46; Barrett, Falling In, 1–6, 263–7. For why “progressive” Australian pre-war opinion supported compulsory military training, see Tanner, Compulsory Citizen Soldiers. The National Service League was less eager to point out that the Australians were bitterly divided over the adoption of full conscription in wartime. Between 1916 and 1917 proposals to conscript reinforcements for the volunteer Australian Imperial Force overseas were submitted to the electorate in two referenda, but both failed. 113 “Manifesto to the Trade Unionists of the Country,” 11–12. 114 “Transport Workers and Conscription,” Morning Post, 28 August 1915, 9. 115 Stubbs, “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour,” 777. 116 Waites, A Class Society at War, 190–2. 117 “J.W. Kneeshaw,” British Biographical Archive, series 2. (London: K.G. Saur, 1984); Thompson, The Enthusiasts. 118 Kneeshaw, Conscription or Trade Unionism, 3–4, 11, passim; Kneeshaw, Conscription and Motherhood; Kneeshaw, Conscription Enters the Workshops, 13, passim.

240

Notes to pages 36–41

119 Glasier, Militarism. Imperial War Museum. Department of Printed Books. Wellington (House) Ephemeral Collection. First World War Propaganda Pamphlets, 2, 4–7, 13–14, 24–30. 120 Ward, Red Flag and Union Jack, 139. 121 Glasier, The Peril of Conscription, 2. 122 Ibid., 3. 123 Ibid., 4–5; For an examination of those aristocrats considered to be die-hards who voted against the People’s Budget of 1909, see Phillips, The Diehards. 124 Glasier, The Peril of Conscription, 18–21. 125 Gollin, 285–6. 126 Wilson, The Myriad Faces of War, 211–14, 396–401. 127 MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 155. 128 “Remittances from Branches of National Service League for quarters ending December 1913–15,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Amounts remitted to headquarters were as follows: £1,574 19s 9d (December 1913); £1,260 6s 7d (December 1914); £831 10s 9d (December 1915). 129 Subscription Income of National Service League (Headquarters and Branches) in 1913 and 1915 compared. Enclosed with letter from Lord Curzon to R. Macleod (League Secretary). cpio, Mss Eur f 112/168. 130 “Secretary’s Report, Meeting of General Council of the National Service League,” 27 January 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112/168. 131 “Minutes of General Council Meeting,” 6 April 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112/168. 132 National Service League, Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending March 31, 1915. Presented at Thirteenth Annual General Meeting, 16 June 1915, 23. 133 “Secretary’s Report, Meeting of General Council of the National Service League,” 27 January 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168, 1–3. 134 Ibid. 135 National Service League, Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending March 31, 1915. Presented at Thirteenth Annual General Meeting, 16 June 1915, 6–10. By the time the National Service League ended its operations, the Field Glass Fund would have collected 30,000 field glasses and telescopes. 136 Lambert, The Parliamentary History of Conscription. 137 Hayes, Conscription Conflict, passim; Adams and Poirier, The Conscription Controversy, passim; Mackie, “The Conscription Controversy, passim; Wilson, The Downfall of the Liberal Party, 78–85. 138 Stubbs, “The Conservative Party and the Politics of War 1914–1916,” 205–65;

Notes to pages 41–4

139 140 141

142 143 144 145

146

147

148 149 150

151 152

241

Stubbs, “The Impact of the Great War on the Conservative Party,” 14–38; Ramsden, An Appetite for Power, 224–5. One of Gollin’s chapters is entitled “Freedom or Control”; see also Adams and Poirier’s chapter “Choosing Sides.” “Secretary’s Report, Meeting of General Council of the National Service League,” 27 January 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168, 3–4. In file immediately before notes on “Conclusions of the Joint Sub-Committee of the National Service League and the Royal Colonial Institute arrived at during their Meeting on the 15th May 1916.” mp. Mss Milner dep. 155. fol. 147. x. films 9 / 56. R. Macleod to Sir Harry Wilson, 7 April 1916, “National Service League,” rcs. MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 154–5; Reese, The History of the Royal Commonwealth Society, 147; Stubbs, “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour,” 731. Miller, ed., Royal Commonwealth Society, 1868–1968; Reese, 13–28, 88–90, 93–109. Lady Aileen Roberts to Lord Milner, 16 February 1916. mp. Mss Milner / 137. mp. I would like to thank Professor Thomas Kennedy for this reference. “Scheme for the fusion of the Royal Colonial Institute and the National Service League under the title of the United Empire Society or the Imperial Union,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the Royal Colonial Institute and the National Service League under the title of ‘Imperial Union’ or as alternative ‘Royal Colonial Institute and National Service League’.” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Hereafter referred to as “Schemes”; Also found in rcs in file marked “National Service League.” Reese, 147. “Minutes for General Council Meeting of National Service League at Caxton Hall,” 30 May 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. “Report of the Sub-Committee appointed by the General Council on 4 May 1916 to consider terms of fusion of the National Service League and the Royal Colonial Institute,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. R. Macleod to Sir Harry Wilson, 22 May 1916, in “National Service League,” rcs. “Vice Presidents and Members of the Council of the National Service League” and “List of General Council and Dates of Retirement” with letter of 22 May 1916, “National Service League,” rcs.

242

Notes to pages 44–7

153 The statement showed that as of 31 March 1916, the league’s headquarters account had over £ 7,800 and the league still retained investments of £1,000. Branch accounts totalled over £3,000. R. Macleod to Sir Charles Lucas, 26 June 1916, “National Service League,” rcs. 154 R. Macleod to Sir Harry Wilson, 27 June 1916, in “National Service League,” rcs. 155 Sir Harry Wilson to R. Macleod, 21 July 1916, in “National Service League,” rcs. 156 R. Macleod to Sir Harry Wilson, 21 July 1916, in “National Service League,” rcs. 157 “Memorandum on Amalgamation of the National Service League,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Enclosed with letter of 12 June 1916. 158 George Shee to Sir Harry Wilson, 24 July 1916, in “National Service League,” rcs. 159 Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon; Mosley, Curzon; Nicolson, Curzon; Gilmour, Curzon. 160 Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon, vol. 3, 118. 161 For example, see “Speech in the House of Lords on Lord Roberts, November 17, 1914”; “Meeting at St. Andrew’s Hall in Glasgow, September 10, 1914” and “Speech Room at Harrow School, October 12, 1914”; Lord Curzon, Subjects of the Day. 162 Lord Curzon, War Poems and other Translations. Curzon translated a variety of war poems from the Belgian writer Emile Cammaerts and others, as well a series of additional works. He claimed that translating poetry from different countries was an “amiable hobby to which many persons – and it would seem, ‘public men’ – in particular are prone.” Curzon, War Poems, v. The proceeds from the sales of this volume went to the Belgian Relief Fund. 163 Ronaldshay, 121. 164 Gilmour, 432–47. 165 Because of almost unanimous opposition to conscription amongst Irish Catholics and through the efforts of John Redmond, its applicability to Ireland was postponed in January 1916 and even after the second National Service Act of May 1916. This exclusion remained a sore point for English Conservatives right up to the end of the war. The Irish Labour movement was especially prominent in the Irish struggle against conscription. Lindsay, “Labour against Conscription,” 77–89; Adams and Poirier, 140–1, 168. In April 1918, an unsuccessful effort was made by Lloyd George to link conscription for Ireland with Home Rule. Lyons, Ireland since the Famine, 393–5.

Notes to pages 48–50

243

166 Duke of Wellington to Curzon, 10 May 1916; Sir Henry Craik to Curzon, 13 May 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 167 Arthur Bowen to Curzon, 25 June 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 168 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Representative Council of the National Service League,” held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, 23 June 1916, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 169 “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the National Service League and Royal Colonial Institute” [May 1916] cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 170 Efforts to promote dominion co-operation over the Imperial Navy had provoked significant opposition, especially in Canada. Prime Minister Laurier’s compromise solution was the Naval Service Bill of 1910, which proposed to construct a Canadian navy that in time of war could be placed under imperial control with the approval of the Canadian Parliament. This initiative served only to outrage Quebec nationalists for going too far and essentially condoning Canadian participation in imperialist wars. It was also harshly criticized by imperialist Conservatives, who derided the scheme as a “tinpot” navy unworthy of Canada’s part in the Empire. Brown and Cook, Canada 1896–1921, 168–73; Stacey, Canada in the Age of Conflict; “Nationalism vs. Imperialism: 1905–11,” in Wade, The French Canadians, 536–607. 171 “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the National Service League and Royal Colonial Institute” [May 1916] cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 172 “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the National Service League and Royal Colonial Institute” [May 1916] cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 173 Unlabelled memorandum. Attached to letter of Macleod to Curzon, 22, May 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 174 On Curzon’s nonattendance at meetings, see Milner to Curzon, 28 March 1916 and 27 November 1916. On Hannon’s support of Curzon, see P.J. Hannon to Curzon, 26 June 1916, 30 June 1916, and 15 July 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 175 This clause raised Labour opposition and there was an unsuccessful effort to remove it. In the Lords, Haldane and Salisbury also raised an effort to make military training a mandatory part of the curriculum of continuation classes for children over fourteen. Outside parliament, some patriotic groups such as the Boys’ Brigade and the Boy Scouts initially were hesitant about the physical training clause allowing schools to usurp their function. Eventually they were also brought around to support it. Ogg, Herbert Fisher, 1865–1940, 79; Andrews, The Education Act, 1918, 59, appendix A; Sherington, English Education, 105, 115.

244

Notes to pages 51–5

176 “Minutes of Meeting of Representative Council of the National Service League,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168, 5. 177 Reid, “Dilution, Trade Unionism and the State,” 46–74; Waites, A Class Society at War, 194–7; Middlemas, Politics in Industrial Society, 79–89, 95–7, 108–11; Rubin, War, Law and Labour. 178 Stubbs, “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour,” 719–20. 179 Ibid., 717–54. 180 Seddon, Why British Labor Supports the War. 181 “Minutes of Meeting of General Council of the National Service League,” 31 July 1916, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 /168. 182 “Outline of a Scheme for National Training after the War,” cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 183 Field Marshal Lord Roberts, “The Territorial Force: an Introductory Note”; “The Territorial Force: Lord Haldane’s Scheme Examined” [Speech at Mansion House, 22 July 1912]; and “Address at the Annual Dinner of the Kent Territorial Association, 12 November 1912.” In Lord Roberts’s Message to the Nation, 19–23, 24–38, 48–54. 184 “Report of the Meeting of the Joint Conference of a Sub-Committee of the National Service League and the British Workers’ National League,” 23 August 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168, 2. 185 Ibid., 2–3. 186 Ibid., 4. 187 Ibid., 4. 188 Some other accounts of these negotiations have failed to see how any agreement reached in August 1916 was contingent on further changes by the league, which did not occur. See Millman, Managing Domestic Dissent, 114–15. 189 The British Workers’ National League Executive was as follows: chairman, John Hodge, mp; chairman of Organization Committee, J.A. Seddon; vicepresidents: The Rt Hon. W. Abraham, mp; The Rt Hon. W. Crooks, mp; Charles Duncan, mp; John Hodge, mp; James O’Grady, mp; G.B. Stanton, mp; R. Toothill, mp; Stephen Walsh, mp; A. Wilkie, mp; and David Gilmour. 190 Stubbs, “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour,” 736, 744, 746. During the First World War, Jarrett served as area agent for the Midland area and acting organizational secretary for Birmingham, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire. See National Service League, Occasional Notes, 4. 191 Hannon Papers, hnn / 11 / 2 “British Workers League” (1919–1921), Parliamentary Archives, See the following letters: Hannon to Macleod, 28 March 1919, 1 April 1919; Hannon to Crosfield, 2 August 1919, 24 January 1920,

Notes to pages 55–60

192 193

194

195 196

197

198

199 200

201 202

203 204

245

28 January 1920, 13 February 1920, 19 February 1920, 23 October 1920; Crosfield to Hannon, 27 January 1920; For general background on the bcu, see Turner, British Politics and the Great War, 381–2, 384; Turner, “The British Commonwealth Union,” 528–59. Wootton, The Official History of the British Legion, passim. Barnes, From Workshop to War Cabinet; Douglas, “The National Democratic Party and the British Workers’ League,” 533–62. Cole, A Short History of the British Working Class Movement, 387. “Draft of a proposal to Strengthen the Idea of National Service in the Future,” Undated memorandum enclosed with Wimbledon memorandum dated December 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Barr, The Lion and the Poppy. “The British Legion: Principles and Policy, and National Constructive Programme” in Wootton, Pressure Groups in Britain, 230–3. On the struggles of disabled war veterans to receive adequate pensions and employment, see Cohen, The War Come Home. “National Federation of Discharged and Demobilized Sailors and Soldiers, 1917” and “National Union of ex-Servicemen, statement, 1920” in Wootton, Pressure Groups, 226–30; Englander, “The National Union of Ex-Servicemen and the Labour Movement, 1918–1920,” 24–42. Brock Millman has described the British Workers National League, with whom the National Service League had negotiated as a “proto-fascist organization.” Millman, 118. Wootton, Official History, 15, 26–7, 117–26, 129–30, 216–27. National Service League. “Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1917.” Fifteenth annual meeting. mp, Mss Milner dep. 156/24. Microfilm x.films 9/57. “Minutes of General Council Meeting of National Service League,” 23 November 1916, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. Letter from Lord Milner to league members. 18 December 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112/168. Raising the age limit for conscription and its application to Ireland both became issues during the German Spring 1918 offensive, but by then the league was moribund and did not contribute to the debate. Adams and Poirier, 228–44. Letter from Lord Milner to League members, 18 December 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. “Minutes of the General Council Meeting of National Service League,” 8 December 1916, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168; P.J. Hannon to Curzon, 15 January 1917, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168.

246

Notes to pages 61–5

205 Milner to Curzon, 27 November 1916; 1 December 1916; 9 December 1916. cpio, Mss Eur f 112/168. 206 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Representative Council,” 16 January 1917 mp, Mss Milner dep. 155 fols. 190–2. 207 Ibid., 193–4. 208 Ibid., 194–5. 209 Ibid., 196. 210 P.J. Hannon to Curzon, 16 January 1917, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 211 R. Macleod to Curzon, 22 January 1917, cpio, Mss Eur f 112 / 168. 212 Bush, Women Against the Vote, 282–7; Harrison, Separate Spheres, 214–23; cpio, Mss Eur f 112/37/8–10, 12, 14, 16–17. 213 These criticisms of distant and often paternalistic leadership were strongly shared by the younger members of other organizations such as the AntiSocialist Union and the Tariff Reform League. Coetzee, For Party or Country, 161–2. 214 R. Macleod to league members, January 1917, “National Service League,” rcs. 215 National Service League, “Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1917.” mp. Mss Milner dep. 156/24. Microfilm x.films 9/57. 216 National Service League, “Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1918.” Sixteenth annual meeting. mp, Mss Milner dep. 156/25. Microfilm x.films 9/57. 217 “National Service League – Winding Up: decision to allocate assets to Boy Scouts Association,” The Times, 17 February 1921, 7; “National Service League – Winding Up: Particulars,” The Times, 24 February 1921, 7; “National Service League – Winding Up: Resolution Passed,” The Times, 22 March 1921, 13; National Service League – Terminated,” The Times, 16 March 1922, 9. Stearn, 323. 218 Summers, “Militarism in Britain,” 121; MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 155; Reese, 147. 219 In 1937, with the threat of Germany re-appearing, Coulton reprinted The Case for Compulsory Military Service himself to bring his old Conscriptionist ideas back into circulation. 220 Hayes, 318–19, 327–30. 221 Barker, Economic Statesmanship; Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossways, Democracy and the British Empire, A Survey of Socialism and Conservatism in England. 222 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 20 November 1930, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 225. vlcf.

Notes to pages 65–9

247

223 Summers, “Militarism in Britain,” 121. 224 An organization called the Citizen Defence League was founded in January 1939 with the Marquess of Salisbury as a vice-president and National Service League veteran Leo Amery as a member of its council. It was a fringe movement and did not secure any major public support. Hayes, 373–4. For a general history of the decision to impose conscription in 1939, see Dennis, Decision by Default. 225 On various questions of social, political and cultural continuity between the war and post-war, see Hynes, A War Imagined; Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory; Eksteins, The Rites of Spring; Thompson, The Edwardians; Harris, Public Lives, Private Spirit.

chapter two 1 Though a number of studies by amateur historians and compilers are mostly of antiquarian interest, they have preserved some valuable documents and information. These studies are all currently held in the archives of the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers in Clapham, London. (lect). Most important is Guillet, “One Queen, One Flag.” Other studies include Wilkinson, “Seventy-Five Years of Service”; Bell, The Story of the League; Reminiscences of 60 Years of Exchange; League Scrapbook of Memorabilia 1901–1991; and The Story of the League 1901–1991. The only serious scholarly studies are Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity 1901–1926 and “The ABCs of Imperial Unity,” 49–64. Overviews of the League of the Empire are found in Porter, The Absent Minded Imperialists, 175, 181, 188; and MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 155–6. 2 Annual General Report of the League of the Empire 1904–05, 27; Annual General Report of the League of the Empire 1906–07, 8, 82; Annual General Report of the League of the Empire, 1912–1913, 6. 3 Pollock, “The League of the Empire,” 740. 4 In addition to bomb damage, historians are also hindered by the fact that the league did not always include such information in its publications and reports. 5 Pollock, “The League of the Empire,” 741. 6 “Statement of Receipts and Payments for the Year Ended 31 December 1915,” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail,’ no. 109, June–July 1916, 879; “Receipts and Payments for Year ending 31 December 1917: League of the Empire Annual Conference: July 20th–July 22nd, 1917,” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail,’ no. 113, July–August 1917, 909.

248

Notes to pages 69–71

7 The league made numerous wartime requests to the Rhodes Trust but they were denied. The Trust favoured the Victoria League and did not wish to contribute to a second organization whose functions seemed to overlap. The only exception was a £100 grant given in January 1918 to assist the league in creating and distributing a report of the meeting of the Imperial Union of Teachers and to prepare for a future Imperial Teachers Conference. See F. Pollock and Philip Hutchins to Secretary of Rhodes Trust, 29 June 1917; Secretary of Rhodes Trust to Sir Philip Hutchins, 9 January 1918. rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire 1904–1924. Box 16 / 1, rt. 8 “Pollock 1845–1937,” Mss Eng. hist c. 2910 Goodhart fol. 62–3. Papers of Arthur Lehman Goodhart, Microfilm, x. Films 11 / 25. Reel 25 of 71. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. 9 Duxbury, Frederick Pollock and the English Juristic Tradition, 14–16. 10 Wardle, English Popular Education 1780–1970, 109; Tropp, The School Teachers, 118; Copelman, London’s Women Teachers. 11 Duxbury, 56–8; Kendle, The Colonial and Imperial Conferences, 56. 12 The Editor, “Sir Frederick Pollock,” Law Quarterly Review, no. 210. (April 1937), 204–6. Mss Eng. hist c. 2889 Goodhart fol. 28–29. Papers of Arthur Lehman Goodhart, Microfilm, x. Films 11 / 20. Reel 20 of 71. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. 13 Kendle, 57. 14 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 57–8. 15 Ibid., 59. 16 Sir Frederick Pollock, “The Government of Empire,” The Federal Magazine, 15 March 1909: 38–40. 17 Potton, “Sir Frederick Pollock,” 199–203; The Editor, “Sir Frederick Pollock,” Law Quarterly Review, no. 210. (April 1937), 204–6; Mss Eng. hist c. 2889 Goodhart fol. 25–29. Papers of Arthur Lehman Goodhart, Microfilm, x. Films 11 / 20. Reel 20 of 71. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. 18 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 8. See also Hutchins, An Indian Career; and The Times, 22 May 1928, 21. 19 James Greenlee was unable to find any significant biographical material on her. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 9. 20 Mrs Ord Marshall’s maiden name was Elizabeth Middleton Beloe. She was one of ten surviving children of the Reverend R.S Beloe, Vicar of All Saints Church, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, and later Holt St Peter’s, Halesworth, Suffolk, and his wife Mary Ware. Her only brother became the headmaster at Bradfield College, Berkshire. The Story of the League 1901–1991, 45. 21 Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 5.

Notes to pages 71–5

22 23 24 25 26

27

28

29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36 37

38

249

The Story of the League 1901–1991, 45–6. Ibid., 5, 46. Galbraith, “Albert Frederick Pollard 1869–1948,” 257–74. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 23. Pollard, “History and Science: A Rejoinder,” 38; Pollard, “Scheme for the Study of Imperial History,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 96. February 1915, 769 as quoted in Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 23–5. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 25. See also Pollard, “The Growth of an Imperial Parliament,” History I (1916): 133, as quoted in Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity. “Professor Ernest A. Gardner, R.N.,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 882; The Story of the League 1901–1991, 47; “Imperial Text Book Scheme,” League of the Empire Monthly Record, 15 September 1906, 235–7. Pollard Papers, Senate House Archives, University of London. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 24–5. “Professor Ernest A. Gardner, R.N.,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 882; The Story of the League 1901–1991, 47. Gardner’s papers at University College, London, are fairly disappointing on his wartime service and the league. They are mostly notes for lectures on archaeology and notebooks from his travels and digs. However, his diary for 1916–17 chronicles his time in Salonica. Gardner Papers, Ms. Add. no. 16, University College, London. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 26–8. See Egerton, A Short History of British Colonial Policy. Ibid., 28. Weber, Our Friend ‘The Enemy,’ 127. Ibid., 283. See also “Mr. H.E. Egerton: Pioneer Historian of the Empire,” The Times, 23 May 1927, 19, as cited in Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity. Temperley, “The Historical Ideas of J.B. Bury,” xv–xxxii. Ibid., 99–227. Bury wrote a number of histories of the later Roman and Byzantine empires as well as editing a late nineteenth-century edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Some of his more thematic works included The Science of History (1903); History of Freedom of Thought (1913) and The Idea of Progress (1920). Mangan, The Games Ethic and Imperialism, 28–9.

250

Notes to pages 75–8

39 During his post-war tour of South Africa on behalf of the Rhodes Trust, Rendall was seen by his critics to exemplify “academic aloofness, and ... ‘sacerdotalism’ as well as superiority and pomposity.” W.A. Way to Wylie, Grey Institute, Port Elizabeth, Cape Province, 28.3.1925. rt / 2611. 40 Goodman and Harrop, eds, Women, Educational Policy-Making and Administration in England; Hilton and Hirsch, eds, Practical Visionaries. 41 “Minutes of the Second meeting of the education council of the League of the Empire,” Winchester College, 3 June 1904. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Annual General Meeting Book. From 19/6/1904 to 26/9/1970. 42 League of the Empire, Report of the Negociations [sic] for Amalgamation between the League of the Empire and the Victoria League, 1. 43 Lady Jersey to Philip Hutchins, 18 June 1909 in Report, 8; Philip P. Hutchins. Chairman, Executive Committee of League of Empire to editor of The Times in Report, 11. 44 These figures included Lord Tennyson, president of the League of the Empire and prominent individual members such as Rudyard Kipling. “List of Resignations from the League of the Empire,” Received at Rhodes Trust, 22 October 1909, rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire, 1904–1924, Box 16 / 1, rt. 45 Today, the two organizations are the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers (specializing in arranging teacher exchanges throughout the Commonwealth) and the Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship (which runs a student residence for Commonwealth students in Bayswater, London). 46 Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 141. 47 For an example, see Sargent, South Africa. 48 “The Visual Instruction Committee” (London: Colonial Office, 1911), Appendix 2 in Cowper, “British Education, Public and Private,” 385–99. 49 Smith, The Royal Overseas League; Reese, The History of the Royal Commonwealth Society, 148. 50 Annual General Report of the League of the Empire, 1910–11, 8. 51 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August– September 1916, 885. 52 For a discussion of this scheme, see part four of this chapter. 53 Summary of work accomplished by the League of the Empire 1901–1918, 1. 54 Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1906–1907, 36; Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1910–11, 6; Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1912–1913, 9.

Notes to pages 78–80

251

55 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 13. 56 Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1910–11, 20. 57 Mrs Ernest Gordon, “Interchange of Information and Specimens between Schools,” League of the Empire: Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations, 1912, Seventh Session, Tuesday, 16 July 1912. (Caxton Hall, Westminster), 22–4. 58 Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1910–11, 30. 59 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August– September 1916, 885. 60 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 102. September 1915, 818. 61 “Comrades All,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 2. [new issue] December 1915, 12; “Comrades All,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 8 [new issue] January–February 1917, 18. 62 “Prize Essay: The Development of Railways throughout the Empire,” The Federal Magazine, no. 90. November–December 1913, 692–4; “Prize Essay: Colonies in Ancient and Modern Times: Their Development and Relations to the Mother State,” The Federal Magazine, no. 83. January 1913, 587–8. Other pre-war topics were literary and autobiographical. See “Prize Essay: The Value of English Literature as a Bond of Union Between the English Speaking Races,” The Federal Magazine, no. 75. October 1911, 458–9; “Prize Essay: An Ordinary Day of My Life,” The Federal Magazine, no. 74. August– September 1911, 430. The wife of Professor Ernest Gardner wrote an interesting evaluation of a year’s entries in Mrs Ernest Gardner, “Notes on the Empire Day Essays of 1911,” The Federal Magazine, no. 74. August–September 1911, 428. 63 “Prize Essay: The Value of a Sea Coast to a Country,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 91. January–February 1914, 714–15; “Prize Essay,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 93. October 1914, 744. 64 “Empire Day Essay Competition,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 116. Michaelmas 1918, 943. 65 Sir Robert Lucas-Tooth (1844–1915), educated at Eton, sat in the parliament of New South Wales and was appointed Commissioner for Canada. He ran unsuccessfully as a Conservative in the British general election of 1895. He also served as chairman of the Bank of New South Wales. 66 Summary of work accomplished by the League of the Empire 1901–1918, 3. 67 “The Over-Supply of Teachers in England: A Suggestion for Their Exchange,” The Federal Magazine, no. 68. October 1910, 317–18.

252

Notes to pages 80–3

68 Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1906–1907, 30. 69 Fred J. Ney, “Empire Travel for Teachers,” League of the Empire: Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations, 1912, Seventh Session, Tuesday, 16 July 1912 (Caxton Hall, Westminster), 26–9. Ney was secretary of the Education Department in Winnipeg and hon. secretary of the “Hands Across the Sea” Movement. On the 1910 Manitoba teachers tour of Britain, see Morgan, ‘A Happy Holiday,’ 109–14. 70 Annual General Report of the League of the Empire 1910–1911, 29–30; Pollard, ed., The British Empire, 784–6. 71 Report of the Imperial Conference of Teacher’s Associations convened by the League of the Empire. July 13th to 17th, 1912, 57–66. 72 F. Mildred Frey, “The Migration of Teachers: A Plea from New South Wales,” Session III, Minutes of Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations (London: League of the Empire, 1912), 42–5. 73 E.M. Ord Marshall, “The Migration of Teachers for Purposes of Study and for Interchange of Appointments,” Session 3, Minutes of Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations (London: League of the Empire, 1912), 47–50. 74 Annual Report of the League of the Empire 1912–1913, 8. 75 Annual General Report of the League of the Empire 1910–11, 30–1. On the Rhodes Scholarships, see Ziegler, Legacy: Cecil Rhodes. 76 Pollard, “Sunset or Dawn?” 787. 77 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August– September 1916, 884. 78 “Imperial Education Conference,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 881–2. 79 Annual Report of the League of the Empire, 1910–11, 17–18. 80 Anne Bloomfield has analyzed the use of drill and dance to enforce an unsubtle patriotic message in Bloomfield, “Drill and Dance,” in Mangan, ed., Making Imperial Mentalities: Socialisation and British Imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), 74–95. Henry Cowper has examined material published by the Empire Day Movement, such as Lord Meath’s The Empire Day Book of Patriotism, and noted that Meath “showed a subtle touch by stating that a half-holiday on Empire Day was important since the children would then appreciate its significance.” Cowper, “British Education,” 416. 81 Humphries, Hooligans or Rebels?, 41–2; Cowper points to strident opposition to Empire Day from Labour mps and local councillors and notes that many more sophisticated imperialists, such as Lord Milner and Rudyard

Notes to pages 83–5

82 83 84 85 86 87

88

89

90 91

92

253

Kipling, were also unenthusiastic. Cowper, 198–9, 223. See also Marlowe, Milner – Apostle of Empire, 180. Heathorn, For Home, Country and Race, 186. Porter, The Absent-Minded Imperialists, 208–10. English, “Empire Day in Britain, 1904–1958,” 247–76. “General Report of the League of the Empire, 1914–1915,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 101. July 1915, 810–12. Meath, Memories of the Twentieth Century, 262; Mangan, “The Grit of our Forefathers,” 132; Cowper, 200–2. Beatrice Chamberlain (1862–1918), Chamberlain’s oldest child, remained unmarried and cared for her father after his debilitating stroke in 1906. An ardent admirer of her father and his views, she helped organize support for her brother Austen in his East Worcestershire constituency during the tariff reform campaign, though refraining from public activity, which her father disapproved of. Beatrice Chamberlain felt that the Empire’s united response in the war effort was a vindication of her father’s imperialism. She was chair of the League of the Empire’s Flag Fund and Gift Committee. Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, 18–19, 627, 668. “Letter from Miss Beatrice Chamberlain, Chairman of Flag Fund and Gift Committee of League of the Empire,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 6 [New Issue] June–July 1916, 38. “Presentation of Colours to the Overseas Forces [Canada, South Africa, Australia],” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 881; “Editorial: Presentation of Colours and Shield to Representatives of the Indian Army,” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917, 893–4; “General Report of the League of the Empire, 1916–1917: Gifts to the Overseas Soldiers [Newfoundland and Rhodesia],” The Federal Magazine and the ‘All-Red Mail,’ no. 113. July–August 1917, 906; “Presentation at the Colonial Office,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 112. March–April 1917, 901; “Presentation to the Regiments of the Crown Colonies,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ No. 10 [New Issue]. July–August 1917, 66–7. “Presentation to the Regiments of the Crown Colonies,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 10 [New Issue] July–August 1917, 66–7. Summary of work accomplished by the League of the Empire 1901–1918, 3; “War Memorial,” League of the Empire pamphlet, November 1918; Philip Hutchins, Chairman of League of the Empire to Secretary of Rhodes Trust, 3 January 1919. rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire, 1904–1924. Box 16 / 1, rt. Frederick Pollock to Rhodes Trustees, 11 December 1918; Philip Hutchins,

254

93

94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101

102

103 104 105

Notes to pages 86–8

Chairman of League of the Empire to D. Gilmour, Secretary of Rhodes Trust, 3 January 1919; Secretary of Rhodes Trust to Sir Philip Hutchins, 9 January 1919; Sir Philip Hutchins to D. Gilmour, Secretary of Rhodes Trust, 15 January 1919. rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire, 1904–1924. Box 16 / 1, rt. Indenture document, titled “Sir Philip Hutchins with himself and others Appointment of Trustees of the Imperial Education Trust and Declaration of the trusts thereof.” Dated 24 May 1909. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers Headquarters, Clapham, London. “Imperial Text Book Scheme,” The League of the Empire Monthly Record, no. 26. 15 September 1906, 235–7. Pollard, “Preface,” in Pollard, ed, The British Empire, v. Ibid., vi. Hankin, The Story of the Empire [published for the League of the Empire], v. Gerald T. Hankin to A.F. Pollard, 8 October 1910. Albert Pollard Papers, Senate House Archives, University of London. Heathorn, “Let us Remember that we too are English,” 413–21. Heathorn notes that the school readers he examined imply that “English citizenship was also somehow a ‘question of race’ [a statement that] strengthened the claim that these obligations were primordial and unchanging. Loyalty to nation, personified in the figure of the monarch, was a duty which should ‘naturally’ supersede all other loyalties, such as local community or class,” Ibid., 421. The most prominent anti-socialist organizations before 1914 were the AntiSocialist Union and the Liberty and Property Defence League. See Brown, “The Anti-Socialist Union 1908–49,” 234–61; Coetzee, For Party or For Country; Fforde, Conservatism and Collectivism; and Soldon, “Laissez Faire as Dogma,” 208–33. Pollard, ed., The British Empire, 230. The rhetoric on “efficiency” echoes the Edwardian national efficiency movement. See Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency. Ibid., 203–13. On the partisan nature of the Primrose League, see Hendley, “Women and the Nation,” 13–26. New Liberalism turned away from the laissez-faire dogmas of its Liberal predecessors to embrace a positive though limited role for government to create greater opportunities for deserving individuals. For New Liberalism’s view of the State, see Weiler, The New Liberalism, 183–7 and Freeden, The New Liberalism, 70–5.

Notes to pages 88–95

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

120 121 122 123

124 125 126 127

255

Pollard, 212. Hawke, 30, 93–5, 123–4. Ibid., 102, 109–10, 116, 234. Hankin, 110–12. Ibid., 116. Pugh, Electoral Reform in War and Peace; Bernstein, Liberalism and Liberal Politics, 148–54. Pollard, 778–82. Ibid., 784–8. Hawke, The British Empire and its History, 22–4. Ibid., 203, 210. Ibid., 242–4, 249–50. Ibid., 296–7. Castle, Britannia’s Children, 179–81. Hankin says that “A large section of men and women wish to see this training for home defence made compulsory, declaring that the results would be beneficial in a number of ways,” Hankin, 115. Ibid., 115. Ibid., 117. MacDonell, Historical Plays for Children, first series, 43; MacDonell, Historical Plays for Children, second series, 38–9, 48. MacDonell, Historical Plays, second series, 60–8. The metaphor of home as a core component of national identity is discussed extensively in Heathorn, For Home, Country and Race, ch. 5. Dorothy Thompson has also noted the close linkage of Empire, motherhood, and Victoria. Thompson, Queen Victoria, 128–36. Fitzpatrick, The First British Colonies, 1–2. Ibid., 4–6. Stride, Empire Builders, vii. In 1869, the last year before the state began active intervention in elementary education, denominational schools provided “1.7 million places for 2.5 million children in the country, though the average attendance over the year was only about 1.1 million children.” The Education Act of 1870 created universal access to elementary education through state provision for students not covered by the denominational schools. Further acts culminating in the Education Act of 1902 put both elementary and secondary students under the authority of County Councils and County Boroughs. These measures increased the student population considerably. By 1910 over 6 million children were enrolled in elementary schools and over 150,000 in secondary

256

128

129 130 131 132 133

134 135 136 137

138 139 140

141 142 143

Notes to pages 95–9

schools. This represented about two-thirds of all children aged two to eleven. Musgrave, Society and Education in England, 40, 72; Butler and Butler, British Political Facts 1900–1994 Seventh Edition, 342; Halsey, “Schools’ in Halsey, British Social Trends since 1900, 230. Professor Hugh Egerton wrote to A.F. Pollard twice mentioning the hostility of the Victoria League and its desire to pounce on any weak spots in the League of the Empire textbooks. Prof. Hugh Egerton to A.F. Pollard, 4 December 1910; 5 April 1911. Pollard Papers, Senate House Archives, University of London. “Discussion on the Scheme for the Study of Imperial History,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 96. February 1915, 768. Ibid., 768. “The Study of Imperial History,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 98. April 1915, 786. “Discussion on the Imperial History Scheme,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 97. March 1915, 776. “League of the Empire: Scheme for the study of imperial history,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 103. October 1915, 822; Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 147–9. Ibid., 821–3. “Forthcoming Lectures at the Club,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 103. October 1915, 828. Ibid., 823. A.F. Pollard, “Scheme for the Study of Imperial History: Foreword,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 97. March 1915, 775. Pollard was not far off the mark. In 1900–01, out of a population of 39 million, there were only 37,189 university enrolments in Great Britain. At the time only 1 per cent of all nineteen-year-olds were receiving full-time education. Musgrave, 88; Butler, 343. Ibid., 776. Ibid. Pollock, “League of the Empire,” 739; Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 149. No other reference is made to the Imperial Studies scheme in the main post-war league publication, The League of the Empire Review. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 149; Curtis, Education in Britain, 73. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 150–1; Selleck, English Primary Education and the Progressives, 5, 18. For example, at the 1912 conference, the league arranged for the Archbishop of Canterbury to hold a reception for delegates in Lambeth Palace. Included in the festivities was attendance at the performance of a mystery

Notes to pages 99–101

144 145 146 147 148

149 150

151 152

153

154 155

257

play put on in the Palace crypt. Report of the Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations, 11. “Social Service” in Annual General Report of the League of the Empire, 1910–11, 25. Gregory, The Last Great War, 98–9. Cross, St. Helena, 41. Pollock, “The League of the Empire,” 739; “St. Helena Government Lace School,” The Federal Magazine, November–December 1913, 698. Lady Ampthill’s husband was a leading member of the National Service League and Lewis Harcourt was the Liberal colonial secretary from November 1910 to May 1915. “General Report of the League of the Empire, 1914–1915,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 101. July 1915, 810–12. The evacuation scheme was organized with the help of the Women’s Unionist and Tariff Reform Association. “Great Rally at Norwich: Help for Ulster Women,” Primrose League Gazette, vol. XXI, no. 51. December 1913, 8; “Vice Chancellor’s Monthly Letter,” Primrose League Gazette, vol. XXII, no. 59. August 1914, 7; “A Generous Offer”; “Will England Help Us?”; “Help for Ulster Women and Children: Letter from Sir Edward Carson,” Primrose League Gazette, vol. XXII, no. 53. February 1914, 8; Pugh, The Tories and the People, 165. The sweated industries scheme was organized by the British Federation for the Emancipation of Women, though the contributions were to be channeled through the Primrose League Gazette. “Great National Scheme of ‘First Aid’ for Sweated Women and Girl Workers,” Primrose League Gazette, vol. XXII, no. 52. January 1914, 23. “How Boys and Girls may Help for Empire Day,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 8 [new issue] March–April 1917, 63. “News From Home Budgets,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 3. [new issue] January– February 1916, 19; “How Boys and Girls May Help,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 7. [new issue] January–February 1917, 55. “Munitions at Bradfield College,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 106. January–February 1916, 853–4; “Editorial: School Munition Work,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 105. December 1915, 845; “Making Munitions at Bradfield College,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 3. [new issue]. January–February 1916, 17. Bella Sidney Woolf (Mrs R.H. Lock) “The Army of League Helpers,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 4. [new issue]. March 1916, 24. “Work for the Irish Prisoners of War,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 7. [new issue] August–September 1916, 45.

258

Notes to pages 101–3

156 “The League’s Work for the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 93. October 1914, 742. 157 “The League’s Work for the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 99. May 1915, 794; “The League’s Work for the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 94. November 1914, 749; “General Report of the League of the Empire 1914–1915,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 101. July 1915, 810–12. 158 “General Report of the League of the Empire, 1914–1915,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 101. July 1915, 810–12. 159 “First Aid Lectures: In Co-operation with the St. John Ambulance Association,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 98. April 1915, 784; The League’s Work for the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 93. October 1914, 742; “St. John Ambulance Association,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 106. January-February 1916, 855; “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 102. September 1915, 818–20. 160 “The Poet and the Soldier,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917, 891–2. 161 The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (London and Glasgow: Collins Clear Type Press, 1916). Department of Collections Access, Imperial War Museum. 86 / 784. This copy has the following dedication: “To [Private John Peel, 27th Northumberland Fusiliers. The Somme Armentières, Arras, Ypres], who was disabled fighting in the Great War 1914–19.” 162 It was stated, “The donors trust that you will cherish this volume through a long life, and that it will be preserved as an heirloom by coming generations of your family.” “Letter of Dedication from Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Kitchener Souvenir Committee of the League of the Empire” in The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. 163 “Letter of Dedication from Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Kitchener Souvenir Committee of the League of the Empire” in The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. 164 Letter from Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Kitchener Souvenir Committee. Included as supplement to The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917. 165 “The Shakespeare Souvenir for Disabled Soldiers: Described by Sir Sidney Lee. In the presence of h.r.h. Princess Louise at St. Dunstan’s, January 24th,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 112. March–April 1917, 899–900.

Notes to pages 103–4

259

166 The power of literature as a means of imperial unity was also referred to before the war as a prize essay topic for the Lord Meath Empire Day Challenge Cup. “The Value of English Literature as a Bond of Union Between the English Speaking Races,” The Federal Magazine, no. 75. October 1911, 458. 167 Princess Louise was the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria and was married to the ninth Duke of Argyll who served as the Governor-General of Canada from 1878 to 1883. Princess Marie Louise (1872–1956) was the daughter of Victoria’s fifth daughter, Princess Helena Augusta Victoria, and her husband Christian, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. 168 Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy; Gerard, “Lady Bountiful,” 183–210. A recent work by Frank Prochaska has described the British Royal Family as a “welfare monarchy” due to its enormous commitment to philanthropy. Proschaska, Royal Bounty. 169 “The Poet and the Soldier,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917, 891–2. 170 “General Report of the League of the Empire, 1916–1917: Disabled Soldiers’ Committee,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 113. July–August 1917, 907; On general social policy, see Gilbert, British Social Policy. For related questions of wartime social policy, such as separation allowances, see Pedersen, Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State, 107–19; and MacIsaac, “To Suffer and to Serve.” 171 “Souvenirs for Disabled Soldiers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 116. Michaelmas 1918, 943. 172 “The Shakespeare Souvenir for Disabled Soldiers: Described by Sir Sidney Lee. In the presence of h.r.h. Princess Louise. At St. Dunstan’s, January 24th,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 112. March–April 1917, 899–900. 173 Letter from Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Kitchener Souvenir Committee. Included as supplement to The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917. 174 “Shakespeare and Music,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 114. Easter 1918, 924. 175 Winter cites a total of 1,643,469 wounded in the British Army during the war. Winter, The Great War and the British People, 72–3; and “Britain’s ‘Lost Generation,’” 451. 176 The percentage is derived from Major T.J. Mitchell and Miss G.M. Smith, Official History of the Great War: Medical Services and Casualties of the Great War (London: hmso, 1931), 42, 278. Their analysis was of 1,043,653 casualties admitted to British medical units between 1916 and 1920.

260

Notes to pages 104–9

177 Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory, 157. 178 “The Poet and the Soldier,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 111. January–February 1917, 891–2. 179 Kumar, The Making of English National Identity, 118. 180 ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 3. [new issue] January–February 1916, 19. 181 “The League’s Work for the War: Canadian Branch,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 108. April–May 1916, 871. 182 “Competitions,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 7. August–September 1916, 47; “News from Home Budget,” ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 1. [new issue] October 1915, 7. 183 For recent scholarship on the home front and front line, see Fuller, Troop Morale, and Gregory, The Last Great War, esp. 133–5. 184 “List of Institutions Etc., Helped by the League,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 96. February 1915, 772. In addition to the causes already mentioned, the English charities helped by the league included the Ragged School Union, the Poor Clergy Relief Corporation, the Society for Ladies in Depressed Circumstances, and the Chelsea Work Room for Distressed Working Girls. 185 “The League of Empire War Depot,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 112. March–April 1917, 903. 186 “League of the Empire Summer Meeting for Overseas Visitors. July 15th to 29th, 1916,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 109. June–July 1916, 874. 187 Panayi, The Enemy in our Midst, chs 6–8. 188 Ibid., 774–5. 189 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 102. September 1915, 818–20. 190 “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August– September 1916, 884–8. 191 See Cullingford, “My Country Right or Wrong?” 1–18; Rohman, “Images of Germany,” 47–68; Bridgham, ed., The First World War as a Clash of Cultures. 192 Bishop J.E.C. Welldon, “Education and the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 106. January–February 1916, 851–2. 193 “Notice to Members,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 108. April–May 1916, 867. 194 Sherington, English Education, Social Change and War, ch. V; and “The 1918 Education Act,” 66–85. 195 Ernest Young (Headmaster of County School, Harrow), “The Boy Scouts,”

Notes to pages 109–11

196

197

198 199 200

201 202 203 204

205

206

207

261

The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 105. December 1915, 843–4. Comments by Lord Meath, “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The AllRed Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 884. The Rev William Temple (1881–1944) was the president of the wea from 1908 to 1924. A social idealist, he was a member of the Labour Party from 1918 to 1925 and was well known for his Christian writings with strong social themes, such as Christianity and Social Order. He served as Bishop of Manchester, Archbishop of York, and eventually Archbishop of Canterbury. In the last position, he helped provide the impetus for Butler’s 1944 Education Act. Price, The Story of the Workers’ Educational Association, 11–18, 68–79; Stocks, The Workers’ Educational Association, 19–63. The Rev. William Temple, “The Anglo-Saxon Ideal: Justice and Liberty,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 114. Easter 1918, 914–17. Comments by the Rev. W. A. Parker-Mason (Headmaster, Hulme Grammar School, Manchester), “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 110. August–September 1916, 885. Professor R.S. Conway, “Education and the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 103. October 1915, 824–5. On national efficiency, see Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency. Bishop J.E.C. Welldon, “Education and the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 106. January–February 1916, 851–2. Geraldine E. Hodgson, (Lecturer in Education, University of Bristol), “The Place of Ability in Efficiency,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 107. March 1916, 858–9. Born in London in 1871, Holman emigrated to Australia in 1888 and had a career as a journalist, lawyer, and politician. A Labour politician, he served as acting premier of New South Wales in 1911 and as premier and leader of the Labour Party from 1913–16, as well as premier and leader of the National Party in 1916. He died in 1934. “Comments of Hon. W.A. Holman, Premier of New South Wales on ‘The Anglo-Saxon Ideal: Justice and Liberty,’” The Federal Magazine and ‘The AllRed Mail,’ no. 114. Easter 1918, 917–18. Price wrote that the two main ideas behind the policy of the wea were the accessibility of higher education facilities for all and that “the education supplied shall be of the character desired by working-class students.” Price stressed that the topics most desired by students were those that would help

262

208 209

210

211

Notes to pages 112–18

them gain knowledge to contribute towards social and economic change, such as history, economics, and political science. Price, 80–1. Replies by the Rev. William Temple and Sir Frederick Pollock, The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 114. Easter 1918, 918. Mr M.J. Rendall (Headmaster of Winchester College), “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 102. September 1915, 818. Mr J. Gilbert (Chairman of the Education Committee, London County Council), “Annual Meeting of the League of the Empire and of the Imperial Union of Teachers,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 102. September 1915, 818. Bishop J.E.C. Welldon, “Education and the War,” The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail,’ no. 106. January–February 1916, 851–2.

chapter three 1 Jersey, Dowager Countess of, Fifty-One Years of Victorian Life, 380–1. 2 For a history of the Royal Colonial Institute, later named the Royal Empire Society, see Reese, The History of the Royal Commonwealth Society and MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 122–46. 3 The most prominent recent studies have been Riedi, “Women, Gender and the Promotion of Empire”; and Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power. John MacKenzie provides an overview in ch. 6 of Propaganda and Empire. A few words about the Victoria League’s wartime views on women’s suffrage appear in Bush, Women Against the Vote. 4 Powell, Margaret, Countess of Jersey, 33, 50, 107. 5 “Countess of Jersey,” Dictionary of National Biography 1941–1950, 908. 6 Powell, 57–64, 76–82, 147–50, 183–4. Henry James used the Jersey home at Osterley Park as the background for his novella, The Lesson of the Master. 7 Pugh, The Tories and the People, 57–9; Harrison, Separate Spheres, 118–19; Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, ch. 10; Auchterlonie, Conservative Suffragists, 45, 47, 86; Bush, Women Against the Vote. esp. chs 7 and 8. 8 Powell, 173. Brian Harrison has noted that Lady Jersey “epitomised the antisuffragist ideal in the indirectness of her political influence,” Harrison, 83. 9 Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 49. 10 Powell, 166–7. 11 “Third Annual General Meeting under the New Constitution” held on 22 June 1915, Central Hall, Westminster in Victoria League Annual General Meetings 1903–50. vlcf.

Notes to pages 119–21

263

12 These works included a two-volume study of Florence Nightingale, a work on the well-known editor of The Times, John Thaddeus Delane, and a memoir of Edmund Garrett, a young colleague at the Pall Mall Gazette who died in South Africa. 13 “Sir Edward Cook,” The Times, 2 October 1919. Bodleian Library, Oxford Mss Autogr.c.25 d. 40–2. fol. 71. For his writings, Delane of The Times; Edmund Garrett; and The Life of Florence Nightingale. For a sample of his Liberal Imperialism, see Rights and Wrongs of the Transvaal War and “Eight Years of Liberal Imperialism,” 1–11. For his essays on editing, see Cook, Literary Recreations and More Literary Recreations. 14 Cook, The Press in War-Time. 15 Mills, Sir Edward Cook, 242–4. Mills notes that the league’s secretary could not recall a single instance where the Executive Committee did not follow Cook’s advice. 16 Scott, The Life and Death of a Newspaper, 333. 17 February 26, 1914 Diary g, 59; Diaries of Sir Edward Tyas Cook. Diary g (13.1.12–24.4.16). Bodleian Library, Oxford. 18 “Resignation of Deputy President,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 15 May 1919, 226; “Death of Sir Edward Cook,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 October 1919, (n.p.), Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916– November 1920). vlcf. 19 Cook’s speech to the Victoria League Imperial Health Conference of 1914 was published as a brief pamphlet entitled Practical Imperialism and the Ideals of Public Health, but Cook showed little inclination to pursue this type of imperialism further. 20 Bush, “Edwardian Ladies and the ‘Race’ Dimensions of British Imperialism,” 283. 21 Riedi, “Options for an Imperialist Woman,” 62–71; Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 45–6; Bush, “Edwardian Ladies and the ‘Race’ Dimensions of British Imperialism,” 283; Markham: South Africa: Past and Present. 22 Lewis, “Violet Markham, 1872–1959,” 287. 23 Jones, “Violet Markham 1872–1959,” 1, 5–7, 10–11; Markham, Return Passage, 63–7, 95–103, 142–57, 172, 189–204; Milner, England in Egypt; Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 198. 24 “Elections to the Executive,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 May 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916 – November 1920), 163; “Minutes of the Annual General Meeting,” 26 June 1918, in Victoria League Annual General Meetings 1903–50, vlcf.

264

Notes to pages 121–3

25 “Annual Meeting – Presentation to Miss Talbot,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 89. 15 July 1918, 54–5. 26 Victoria League Third Annual Report 1904–05 (London: Victoria League, 1905), 10. 27 Victoria League Fourth Annual Report 1905–06 (London: Victoria League, 1906), 6. 28 Victoria League Eleventh Annual Report 1912–13 (London: Victoria League, 1913), 4–5. 29 Will Crooks was made a privy councillor in 1916. “William Crooks,” Dictionary of Labour Biography vol. 2, 107–12. 30 “Annual General Meeting: Albert Mansbridge,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 43. 15 May 1913, 40–1. 31 “Third Annual General Meeting under the New Constitution” held on 22 June 1915, Central Hall, Westminster in Victoria League Annual General Meetings 1903–50. vlcf. 32 Ibid. 33 “Annual Meetings,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 50. 34 Victoria League Tenth Annual Report 1911–12 (London: Victoria League, 1912), 19. 35 Victoria League Eleventh Annual Report 1912–13 (London: Victoria League, 1913), 5; Victoria League Twelfth Annual Report 1913–14 (London: Victoria League, 1914), 5–6. 36 “A Joint Meeting of Representatives of the Royal Colonial Institute and the Victoria League was held at the Royal Colonial Institute on Friday, 17th January 1913,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies, rcs. 37 “A Joint Meeting of Representatives of the Royal Colonial Institute and the Victoria League was held at the Royal Colonial Institute on 3 December 1913,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies, rcs. 38 “Minutes of June 26, 1914,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. 39 “Meeting of December 7, 1915,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. 40 “Meeting of July 6, 1917,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. 41 “Royal Colonial Institute,” Minutes of Victoria League executive committee meeting, 17 January 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 142; “Meeting of January 16, 1918,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs.

Notes to pages 124–5

265

42 “League of the Empire,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 March 1916. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), 292. vlcf; Lady M.E. Jersey to Sir Philip Hutchins, 16 March 1916; rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire 1904–1924, rt. Box 16 / 1. 43 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 January 1919, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 203. vlcf. 44 Report of the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations; Souvenir of Imperial Patriotic Meeting. Held on May 19th 1915 at Guildhall in the City of London (London: Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, 1915). Other groups participating in the Central Committee included the League of the Empire, the Navy League, the Overseas Club, the Royal Colonial Institute, the British Women’s Patriotic League, the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association, the Duty and Discipline Movement, and the Mother’s Union. 45 “The Annual Public Meeting: Lady Jersey and Earl Grey,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 May 1913, 37. 46 “Annual General Meeting: Alteration in the Constitution,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 89. 15 July 1917, 50–1. 47 “Finance,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 December 1915; “Correspondence,” Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 October 1919. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 264, (n.p.).vlcf. 48 “Victoria League,” Extract from Report no. 145. Rhodes Trustees, 20 April 1916; Lady M.E. Jersey and Sir J.R. Dunlop Smith to G.R Parkin, Esq., 20 May 1916, rt 1203 Victoria League 1912–1924, rt. Box 33 / 1. 49 Eliza Riedi, “Women, Gender and the Promotion of Empire,” 576. 50 Victoria League Sixth Annual Report 1907–08 (London: Victoria League, 1908), 12; Riedi, “Women, Gender and the Promotion of Empire,” 577. 51 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 21 February 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916– November 1920), 148. vlcf. 52 Victoria League Annual Reports 1914–18 (London: Victoria League, 1914–18). 53 “New Members and Resignations,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 17 July 1919, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 237. vlcf. 54 “Victoria League,” Extract from Report no. 145. Rhodes Trustees, 20 April 1916; Lady M.E. Jersey and Sir J.R. Dunlop Smith to G.R Parkin, Esq., 20 May 1916, rt 1203 Victoria League 1912–1924, rt. Box 33 / 1.

266

Notes to pages 125–8

55 “Annual Meetings,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 17 July 1919, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 237. vlcf. 56 Andrew S. Thompson has found that the term “sane imperialism” originated in an article by the Fabian George Bernard Shaw in 1900 that linked domestic reforms to an “insistence that civilisation as well as trade must follow the flag abroad.” See Thompson, “The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire,” 147–77. 57 Jersey, 381. 58 Victoria League, Victoria League Eighth Annual Report, 1909–10 (London: Victoria League, 1910), 8–9. 59 The Victoria League, “Settler’s Welcome Committee,” (London, 1913). 60 Such groups included the South African Colonization Society, Colonial Intelligence League, British Dominions Emigration Society, British Women’s Emigration Association, and the Church of England Men’s Society. On the impact of several of these groups, see Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, ch. 5. 61 “Conference on Settler’s Welcome,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 3 [new series], 15 March 1914, 20. 62 Victoria League Annual Reports 1910–14 (London: Victoria League, 1910–14). 63 Ibid. 64 Bush, Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power, 120–1. 65 Mommsen, Theories of Imperialism, 93–9. 66 Semmel, Imperialism and Social Reform, 234–5. 67 Scally, The Origins of the Lloyd George Coalition, 8–9; Semmel, 185–6, 238. 68 On the link between social imperialism and compulsory military service, see Porter, The Absent Minded Imperialists, 191. 69 Victoria League Fourth Annual Report, 1905–06 (London: Victoria League, 1906), 31–2. Mrs H.J. (May) Tennant (1869–1946) also served as chairman of the Industrial Law Committee for the Enforcement of the Law and the Promotion of Further Reform. She was a “pioneer in public social work” and especially concerned with “the employment of women in sweated and dangerous trades.” Markham, “Margaret May Tennant,” Dictionary of National Biography 1941–1950, 873–4. 70 The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions. A Handbook compiled by Miss Violet R. Markham together with a General View of the English Law and a preface by Mrs H.J. Tennant. [Issued by the Industrial Sub-Committee of the Victoria League]. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1908), v. 71 Markham, May Tennant: A Portrait, 44, 48–9.

Notes to pages 129–30

267

72 Riedi, “Options for an Imperialist Woman,” 78. 73 “The Imperial Health Exhibition,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 7. 15 July 1914, 60–1; “The Empire and Public Health,” The Times, 19 May 1914, 7. 74 The groups attending included the Association for Promoting the Training and Supply of Midwives, the Canning Town Health Society, the Christian Social Union, the Invalid Children’s Aid Association, the Liverpool Ladies Sanitary Association, and the National Union of Women Workers. 75 For the problem of urban slums in Britain before 1914, see Wohl, The Eternal Slum, especially ch. 8; Burnett, A Social History of Housing 1815–1985, ch. 6; Koven, Slumming. 76 Mr Henry Vivian, jp, “Housing” in Victoria League, Report of Proceedings of the Imperial Health Conference held at the Imperial Institute, London (London: Victoria League, 1914), 27. Hereafter referred to as Imperial Health Conference. 77 Ibid., 28. 78 Ross, “Labour and Love,” 82–3; Carole Dyhouse, “Working-Class Mothers and Infant Mortality,” 248–67. 79 Davin, “Imperialism and Motherhood,” 9–65. 80 Principal W.H. Hadow, “Opening Remarks on Child Care,” in Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 157–9. 81 Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 243–4. The Guild noted that under the National Insurance scheme 1.5 million insured mothers were paid a maternity benefit of £1 10s per baby. They wanted this benefit increased to £7 10s per baby. 82 Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 232. 83 Simon, Education and the Labour Movement 1870–1920, 138–9. 84 Walvin, A Child’s World, 70–8. 85 Childs, Labour’s Apprentices, 75–6. 86 Lord Robert Cecil, Viscount Chelswood (1864–1958), was a Conservative mp from 1906 to 1910 and 1911 to 1923, when he was elevated to the House of Lords. Cecil is best known for his valuable work in foreign policy, particularly in the creation of the League of Nations after the First World War and later the United Nations. 87 Lord Robert Cecil, “Child as Wage Earner,” Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 312–15. See also “Child Wage-Earners,” The Times, 22 May 1914, 5. 88 Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 382. A summary article about the conference by the league’s secretary, Meriel Talbot, used that phrase as its title; Talbot, “Practical Imperialism,” 351–6.

268

Notes to pages 131–3

89 Sir Edward Cook, “Afternoon Session, May 21, 1914, Main Speech,” Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 387. 90 Cook quoted Blake’s famous verses: “I will not cease from mental flight / Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand / Till we have built Jerusalem / In England’s green and pleasant land.” Sir Edward Cook, “Afternoon Session, May 21, 1914, Main Speech,” Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 390. 91 Diaries of Sir Edward Tyas Cook. Diary G (13.1.12–24.4.16), Entries for 18, 19, 20, 21 May 1914, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Cook’s biographer, J. Saxon Mills, quoted Lady Jersey’s assertion that the speech had an “extraordinary effect, and was the one subsequent topic of conversation among the delegates.” Mills, Sir Edward Cook, 242–4. This speech was later reprinted as a Victoria League pamphlet entitled Practical Imperialism and the Ideals of Public Health. 92 Victoria League, Imperial Health Conference, 376. 93 Ibid., 376. 94 Ibid., 384. 95 Victoria League, Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15 (London: Victoria League, 1915), 13. 96 “Meeting of Members, August 19th,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 8. 15 August 1914, 66–7. 97 “Comforts for the Troops: Kit Bags,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 9. 15 September 1914, 77. 98 “Minutes of an Emergency Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Victoria League,” 11 August 1914, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book, (March 1913–June 1916), 132–4. vlcf. 99 Victoria League, Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15 (London: Victoria League, 1915), 13; Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 16–17. 100 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 18 November 1915, Victoria League Executive Committee Minutes Book (March 1913– June 1916), 259. vlcf. 101 “Correspondence from Garden Cities and Town Planning Association,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 March 1916, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book, (March 1913–June 1916), 290. vlcf. 102 In total 269,521 men slept in the clubs from June 1915 to March 1919 and 1,171,193 meals were served. Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report

Notes to pages 133–4

103 104

105

106 107

108

109

110

111

112

113

269

Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs (London: Victoria League, 1919), 5. Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 5. “Clubs for Dominions Soldiers in London,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 63. 15 May 1915, 35. See also “London Club for Overseas Troops,” The Times, 20 May 1915, 11. Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 15 April 1915, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), 207. vlcf. Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 6–7. Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 18 November 1915. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913– June 1916), vlcf; Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 7. “Sir Robert Borden at the Victoria League Club,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 66. 15 August 1915, 67; Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 6. Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 6. Arthur Steel-Maitland also served as the chairman of the Conservative Party from June 1911 to December 1916. Ibid., 6. The Times described it as “exceptionally well adapted for the purpose for which ... [it has] been lent”; “New Club for Dominion Soldiers – Lord Derby’s Tribute,” The Times, 5 August 1916, 3. In six months, the Hatton Garden Club reported serving 16,640 meals. Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 7. Ibid., 7–8; Hallam, ed., Hosts and Guests in War Time, Victoria League Pamphlet no. 25; Meeting of the Soldiers’ Club House Committee, 9 October 1916, Soldiers’ Club House Committee Minutes (June 1916–November 1916), 51. vlcf. Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 9. During their existence, the Scottish clubs combined had 290,000 overnight guests and served 940,000 meals. Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs (London: Victoria League, 1919), 5.

270

Notes to pages 135–7

114 Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 13. 115 Ibid., 13; “King George and Queen Mary Victoria League Clubs,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 85. 15 February 1917, 11; “The Deep Blue Armlet,” The Times, 31 January 1917, 11. 116 Prochaska, Royal Bounty, 175–82. 117 Meeting of the Soldiers Club House Committee, 5 September 1916. Minutes of the Soldiers Club Committee (June 1916–November 1916). vlcf. 118 Between 1915 and 1916, £4,338 was collected for the clubs in London and £831 for those in Edinburgh. “Victoria League.” Extract from Report no. 145. Rhodes Trustees, 20 April 1916, rt 1203. Box 33 / 1. Victoria League 1912–1924. rt. 119 Ibid., 6. 120 Meeting of the Soldiers Club House Committee, 9 October 1916, Minutes of the Soldiers Club House Committee (June 1916–November 1916), 50, vlcf. 121 Meeting of the Soldiers Club House Committee, 9 October 1916, Minutes of the Soldiers Club House Committee (June 1916–November 1916), 48, vlcf; Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 8. 122 Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 6. 123 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 6. 124 Heathorn, “English Elementary Education,” 262. For an extended discussion on the home and ideas of Englishness, see Heathorn, For Home, Country and Race, ch. 5; Matthews, “Imagining Home,” 529–45; and Woollacott, To Try Her Fortune in London. 125 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 January 1919. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 206. vlcf. 126 Hallam, 23. 127 Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 8–9; Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 8–9. 128 Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 8, 12; Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 8–9. 129 “Canadians In England: No Lack of Hospitality,” [A Letter from Julia

Notes to pages 137–9

130

131

132

133

134 135 136 137

138 139

271

Drummond, Canadian Red Cross Society, 3 December 1917], Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 9–10. See also “Club for Ladies of the Dominions,” The Times, 5 May 1916, 9. Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 15; Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 10. Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 11; Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 16–17. This mourning expressed itself in a need for commemoration of the dead through memorials, war poetry, and art, as well as a rise of spiritualism after the war. For a full discussion, see Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning. For the immediate mourning process and the tending of graves, see ch. 4 and King, Memorials of the Great War. On cultural and political debates over the First World War memorials, see Heathorn, “A ‘matter for artists,’” 536–61, and “The Civil Servant and Public Remembrance,” 259–87. Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 17. Riedi, “Imperialist Women in Edwardian Britain,” 70–3; and “Women, Gender and the Promotion of Empire,” 579. “Care of Soldiers’ Graves,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 105. 15 November 1918, 73. Desmond Morton notes that the Canadian Army issued a “drab official telegram” to families of those killed or wounded followed by a “circumstance of death report,” a death certificate, and when possible a burial report. Occasionally families received a card with a photograph of the grave. Morton, When Your Number’s Up, 232. Tylee, The Great War and Women’s Consciousness, 8. One of the major exceptions is Vera Brittain’s moving memoir Testament of Youth. Light, Forever England, 7–9. In a related sense, Andrew Thompson has noted that British politicians from all parties after 1918 became “much more willing to question the use of the army” in imperial affairs and wished to move away from a hyper-masculine notion of Empire maintained by “overwhelming force” towards a more idealistic idea of a “civilizing mission.” Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back?, 137.

272

Notes to pages 140–2

140 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 17 July 1919, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 239, vlcf; Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 5–9. 141 “Meeting of December 7, 1915,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. 142 “Royal Colonial Institute,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 March 1916, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), 293. vlcf; Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 11. For league involvement in post-war hospitality for settlers, see Gothard, “The healthy, wholesome British domestic girl,” 82; and Roe, “We can die just as easy out here,” 106. 143 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 10–11. 144 “Mr Will Crooks, mp.” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 60. 15 February 1915, 12. 145 G.R. Parkin, “The Call of Empire Day to the Nation,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 63. 15 May 1915, 37. 146 “Poetry Competition,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 73. 15 March 1916, 23; “Welcome to the Old Country and to the Victoria League Clubs – addressed to Men of the Overseas Forces by Boys and Girls and some older members of the League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 87. 15 May 1917, 39. 147 “Lectures Arranged Jan.–March 1913”; “Victoria League Lecture List. July 1st to Dec. 1st, 1913.” Included with “Victoria League: Summary of Work From July 1st to Dec. 1st, 1913,” Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. 148 “Organization of Lectures,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 19 August 1914, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), vlcf, 141–2. 149 Douglas, “Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War,” 564–85; Osborne, The Voluntary Recruiting Movement; Sanders and Taylor, British Propaganda in the First World War, 102–5. For an example of a patriotic meeting at which both Prime Minister Asquith and the Conservative leader Andrew Bonar Law spoke, see Souvenir of Imperial Patriotic Meeting. Held on May 19th 1915 at Guildhall in the City of London (London: Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, 1915).

Notes to pages 142–5

273

150 Bottomley gave a total of 340 lectures during the war, of which twenty were strictly recruiting lectures. For the latter, he collected no fee, but for the remainder, which were “all purpose patriotic oration,” Bottomley kept “between 65 and 85 per cent of the proceeds.” Messinger, British Propaganda and the State, 207–12. 151 “Organization of Public Meetings and Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 9. 15 September 1914, 75–6. 152 Ibid., 75–6. 153 Harcourt, A Free Empire in Wartime. Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 21. 154 “The Empire at War: Mr. Harcourt’s Review of Progress,” The Times, 27 January 1915, 19; “The Empire at War: Speech by Mr. Harcourt,” Morning Post, 27 January 1915, 9. 155 Victoria League, Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15 (London: Victoria League, 1915), 16–17. 156 Marwick, The Deluge, 137–9; Wilson, The Myriad Faces of War, 153. 157 Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 12. 158 “V.L. Educational Work,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 76. 15 June 1916, 43. 159 “The Guildhall Meeting – Lady Jersey’s Speech: Co-operation with the Royal Colonial Institute,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 101. 15 July 1918, 52. 160 Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meetings, 18 November 1915; 16 December 1915, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), vlcf, 259–60, 266. Curtis, The Problem of the Commonwealth. 161 A. Newton to Sir Charles Lucas, March 1915, University of London, “Lecture Committee Correspondence”; “Report of Meeting with Mr. A.C. Newton” and Meeting of the Lectures Sub-Committee, 20 March 1916, “The Lectures Sub-Committee Minute Book 1914–1917,” rcs. Of the 83 lectures given 32 were in London, 4 in Birmingham, 4 in Bristol, 5 in Glasgow, 24 in Manchester, 6 in Nottingham, 7 in Sheffield, and 1 in Exeter. 162 “Education on Empire Subjects,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 102. 15 August 1918, 61 163 “Minutes of Branches Committee,” 10 July 1918, 6. vlcf. 164 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 166–7. 165 “Meeting of April 16, 1916,” Victoria League Executive Committee Minutes Book (March 1913–June 1916), 306–7. vlcf. 166 “Victoria League Empire Study Scheme,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes,

274

167 168

169

170 171 172

173 174

Notes to pages 146–7

no. 77. 15 July 1916, 54–5; “Empire Study Scheme,” Victoria League Executive Committee Minutes, (n.d.) 1917. Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 12. “The Cinema in Education,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 100. 15 June 1915, 43; “Minutes of the Branches Committee,” 10 July 1918; “Cinema SubCommittee,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 19 December 1918; “Visual Instruction Committee,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 January 1919, Victoria League Executive Committee Minutes Book (July 1916–November 1920), 199, 204. vlcf. Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 17. Between July and December 1916, out of sixteen lectures given at Canadian camps and recorded in league records, five were on India, three on Russia, three on Italy, and the remainder fairly evenly distributed on more general European topics. “List of Lectures and Meetings July 1st – Dec. 15th, 1916,” included with Victoria League Half Yearly Report. Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. “Lectures to Soldiers in Hospital,” April 1917. Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19, rcs. “V.L. Lectures in Hospitals,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 90. 15 August 1917, 62. For descriptive lectures on geographical and historical topics, 1,001 lectures were given on Allied and foreign countries and 668 lectures on the British Empire. Another 223 lectures were given on technical and scientific, agricultural, and horticultural subjects. A total of 135 lectures were given on the war. Reconstruction had 70 lectures, biographical and literary topics had 81, and 104 lectures were given on miscellaneous topics. Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 11, 13; Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 14. Victoria League, Eighteenth Annual Report 1919–20 (London: Victoria League, 1920), 10. “Lectures in Hospitals,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 96. 15 February 1918, 11. Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 13; “Lectures to Soldiers in Hospital,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 8. 15 April 1917, 27.

Notes to pages 147–9

275

175 Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 13; “Hospital Lectures,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, January 17, 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 141. vlcf. 176 “Education Committee,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 19 December 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 198. vlcf. 177 “The Guildhall Meeting – Lady Jersey’s Speech: Lectures in Hospitals,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 101. 15 July 1918, 51–2. 178 “Report of Education Committee,” Meeting of the Victoria League Executive Committee, 17 January 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 141. vlcf. 179 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 14; Victoria League, Eighteenth Annual Report 1919–20 (London: Victoria League, 1920), 10. 180 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 14. 181 “Lectures in Hospitals,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 100. 15 June 1918, 43. The Whitley Report was the result of studies of a sub-committee appointed by the Lloyd George government headed by J.H. Whitley, mp. The committee was responsible for studying “the relations between employers and employed” and recommended that councils of employers and trade unionists be created throughout industry. Marwick, The Deluge, 84–5. See also Waites, 66–7, and Stitt, “The Role of the Whitley Councils,” 343–54. 182 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 14; Victoria League, Eighteenth Annual Report 1919–20 (London: Victoria League, 1920), 10. 183 “The Guildhall Meeting – Lady Jersey’s Speech: Lectures in Hospitals,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 101. 15 July 1918, 51. 184 Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 19. 185 “The Empire in War Time,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 59. 15 January 1915, 4. 186 “Newspapers,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 April 1915, 26–7. 187 “The Empire in War Time,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 59. 15 January 1915, 4.

276

Notes to pages 149–53

188 Victoria League Fourth Annual Report, 1905–06 (London: Victoria League, 1906), 12. 189 Granatstein, Yankee Go Home?, 76. 190 Sargant, “The Victoria League,” 591. 191 Victoria League, Fourteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1915–16 (London: Victoria League, 1916), 14–15; Victoria League, Fifteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1916–17 (London: Victoria League, 1917), 19–20; Victoria League, Sixteenth Annual Report Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers’ Clubs 1917–18 (London: Victoria League, 1918), 14–15. 192 Hallam, Empire Calendar, 1–12. 193 “Publication of leaflets,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 19 August 1914, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916), 141. vlcf. 194 “The War and the Nation: Publication of Pamphlets,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 9. 15 September 1914, 74–5. 195 Victoria League, Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15 (London: Victoria League, 1915), 14–16. 196 Buitenhuis, The Great War of Words, xv–xvii; Sanders and Taylor, 38–45, 106–36, 142–61. 197 J.S. Sandars to Bonar Law, 24 October 1914. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. John Satterfield Sandars Papers. Mss Eng.hist.a.21; c. 713–773; c. 767. fol. 34–7. x. film 2/14. 198 Its own publications included Burne, Might Gives Right, and King George or Kaiser Wilhelm?; Prothero, How Goes the War?; Doyle, The Story of British Prisoners; and Pollock, German “Truth.” Official publications included the Government’s White Book, the French Yellow Book, Viscount Bryce’s Report, and Appendix of Evidence. 199 Victoria League, Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15 (London: Victoria League, 1915), 15. 200 Sir Edward Cook to Macmillan, 22 August 1914, Add 55 046 Macmillan Archive, Vol. 261. ff 137. British Library. 201 Sir Edward Cook to Macmillan, 5 October 1914. Mss Add 55 046. Macmillan Archive. Vol. 261. ff 146. British Library. 202 Cook, Why Britain is at War, Victoria League Pamphlet No. 1, 2, 16, 24. 203 Ridley, A Talk to the School Children of Britain, Victoria League War Pamphlet. No. 2, 3–7. 204 Ridley, Why Britain is Fighting Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 14, passim.

Notes to pages 153–6

277

205 Big Steamers, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 8; E.B. and Marie Sargant, eds, The Country’s Call, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 10. 206 Cook, Britain and the Small Nations, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 5, 1, 4–7. 207 Pincombe, Britain and Gallant Belgium, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 6, 3–7. 208 Pincombe, A Plain Talk to the People of Britain, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 15, 3, 7. 209 Endure and Fight, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 7, 2. 210 Wallace, Our Russian Ally, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 17; Crewdson, Japan Our Ally, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 22; George Macaulay Trevelyan, The Servians and Austria, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 11. On Trevelyan and the First World War, see Cannadine, G.M. Trevelyan, 61–5, 80–1. Trevelyan strongly supported the war and even commanded a Red Cross Ambulance unit in Italy from 1915 to 1918. 211 Cook, How Britain Strove for Peace, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 16, passim. 212 Cook, Britain and Turkey, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 19, 1, 2–3, 9–16, 22–3, 28–31. Hale, “The Historical Background,” 1–9. A more detailed account of the breakdown of British relations with Turkey leading to the First World War is found in Heller, British Policy Towards the Ottoman Empire. 213 Sadler, Modern Germany and the Modern World, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 9, 1–6, 8–12. 214 Edward William Macleay Grigg, Baron Altrincham (1879–1955), worked as a journalist for The Times and later served as editor of the Round Table. He fought with the Grenadier Guards during the First World War and after the war shifted to politics, working as private secretary for Prime Minister Lloyd George. He served as a Lloyd George Liberal mp from 1922 to 1925 and as a Conservative mp from 1933 to 1945. From 1925 to 1930 he was Governor of Kenya and during the Second World War served in a variety of junior ministerial posts. “Edward William Macleay Grigg,” Dictionary of National Biography 1951–60, 439–41. 215 Grigg, Why the Dominions Came In, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 12, 2–7. 216 Ibid., 7–8. 217 Bhupendranath Basu (1859–1924) served as a member of the council of the Secretary of State for India from 1917 to 1923 and of the executive council of the Governor of Bengal in 1924. He served as president of the Indian

278

218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233

234 235 236 237

238 239 240

Notes to pages 157–63

National Congress in 1914 and as Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University in 1924. Who was Who, vol. II, 1916–1928, London: A & C Black, 1992, 50. Basu, Why India is Heart and Soul with Great Britain, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 18, 1–8. Goslett, To Girls in Wartime, Victoria League Pamphlet No. 13. Woollacott, “‘Khaki Fever’ and its Control,” 325–48. Gullace, “White Feathers and Wounded Men,” 178–206. Gullace, ‘The Blood of our Sons,’ 158–66. The best work on British female munitions workers is Woollacott, On Her Their Lives Depend. Dictionary of National Biography 1922–1930, 406–7. Vogeler, Frederic Harrison, 68, 81–5, 115, 201–2, 367. Harrison, The Meaning of the War, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 3, 5. Ibid., 3–5. Ibid., 7–8. Trentmann, Free Trade Nation, 4. Cox, The Economic Strength of Great Britain, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 20, 1–8. Cook, Britain’s Part in the War, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 23, 4–7. For a more detailed discussion of British economic performance during the war, see Milward, The Economic Effects of the Two World Wars on Britain, 51–6. Cook, Britain’s Part in the War, 7–11. Alfred E. Zimmern (1879–1957) was an academic specializing in ancient history and international relations. Educated at Winchester and Oxford, he showed some interest in working-class issues, serving on a joint committee on Oxford and working-class education from 1907 and 1908 and helping compile a handbook entitled War and the Workers for the Workers’ Education Association in 1915. After the war he served as professor of international politics at Oxford and worked as deputy director of the League of Nations Institute of Intellectual Co-operation. Gullace, The Blood of our Sons, 109–15, 182–4. Adams and Poirier, The Conscription Controversy, 114–15, 139; Hayes, Conscription Conflict, 227–48. De Groot, Blighty, 94–101, 153–7. Britain’s Part in the War, Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 24, 26–7, 40. On the first stirrings of corporatism in the First World War and new concepts of industrial relations, see Middlemas, Politics in Industrial Society, 120–43. Britain’s Part in the War (1917), 42–3. Waites, A Class Society at War, 201–3. Gregory, The Last Great War, 199–208.

Notes to pages 163–8

279

241 Britain’s Part in the War (1917), 46–51. 242 Fussell looks at the poetry of fellowship between soldiers from a homoerotic perspective; Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory, 270–91. 243 De Groot, 243–6. 244 “Publications Committee,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 21 February 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 149. vlcf. 245 De Groot notes that “Until late 1917, when war weariness grew, the government was satisfied to leave propaganda to inspired amateurs in organizations ... [including] the Victoria League.” De Groot, 175. For the movement towards direct government involvement in wartime propaganda, see Marwick, The Deluge, 212–14; Wilson, The Myriad Faces of War, 733–5; Gregory, 207–8. 246 “Publications Committee,” Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 21 February 1918, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920), 149. vlcf. 247 Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-Time. 248 “Annual Meeting,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 6. 15 June 1914, 51. 249 “The Late Field Marshal Earl Roberts, v.c., k.g. &c.” (By One who knew Him). The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 12. 15 December 1914, 98. 250 “Editorial Notes: Lord Roberts and the Victoria League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 60. 15 February 1915, 10. 251 See “The Empire’s Gifts,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 11. 15 November 1914, 92–3; “The Empire’s Gifts,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 12. 15 December 1914, 100. 252 “Orange Free State,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 68. 15 October 1915, 83. 253 “How Good has come out of Evil,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 10. 15 October 1914, 86. 254 “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: A Tempter and the answer given to him,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 69. 15 November 1915, 95. 255 “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The Disturbance in Ireland,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 75. 15 May 1916, 39. 256 “The Indian Troops,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 62. 15 April 1915, 30. 257 “India,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 73. 15 March 1916, 22–3. 258 “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The Life of the People of India,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 75. 15 May 1916, 39. 259 “The Second Battle of Ypres,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 63. 15 May 1915, 38.

280

Notes to pages 168–9

260 “An Empire’s Trust,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 99. 15 May 1918, 34. 261 On the divisive impact of conscription, see Brown and Cook, Canada, 1896–1921, 264–74; Trofimenkoff, “Quebec and the Great War,” 378–94. For a military defence of conscription, see Granatstein, “Conscription in the Great War,” 62–75. 262 “The Empire’s Gifts,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, No. 12. 15 December 1914, 100–1. 263 “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The Dardanelles,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 62–3; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Progress at Gallipoli,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 67. 15 September 1915, 77. 264 “The Empire in War Time,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 59. 15 January 1915, 4–5; “The Empire in War Time,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 61. 15 March 1915, 19; “The Empire in War Time,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 72. 15 February 1916, 12–13. 265 “New Zealanders’ Thanks,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 73. 15 March 1916, 21. 266 “Open Session at Annual Meeting,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 54–5. 267 Schreiner unnecessarily complicated his point by using the politically loaded phrase “Home Rule” and argued that this would give “to the greatest possible extent each individual locality ... the control of its own affairs in its own way.” “Discussion B – ‘How the Issues of the War will affect the Empire as a Whole’ – the Hon. W.P. Schreiner – High Commissioner for South Africa,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 58–60. 268 “Discussion B – ‘How the Issues of the War will affect the Empire as a Whole’ – the Hon. Robert Brand,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 60–1. Brand served as secretary of the Intercolonial Council of Transvaal and Orange River Colony as well as of the Railway Committee of South African Railways. 269 “Discussion B – ‘How the Issues of the War will affect the Empire as a Whole’ – Dr G.R. Parkin,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 65. 15 July 1915, 55–6. 270 On Lionel Curtis, see Gorman, Imperial Citizenship, 56–7. The Victoria League’s sentiments were probably closer to those of people outside Britain. Joseph Chamberlain had proposed an imperial federal council to his colonial counterparts at the 1897 Imperial conference and had been politely rebuffed. See Lloyd, The British Empire 1558–1995, 246–7. 271 This report had called for the establishment of a bicameral legislature with

Notes to pages 170–5

272 273 274 275 276 277 278

281

a partially elected lower house as well as provincial legislatures in which a majority of members were elected. For the league’s reaction, see “The Joint Imperial Studies Committee,” Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 19 December 1918, Minutes of the Victoria League Executive Committee (July 1916–November 1920 ), 197. vlcf. For the British reaction to the report, see Oddie, “Some British Attitudes,” 224–40. “The Empire in War Time – extracts from our Letters,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 73. 15 March 1916, 20. “The Empire in 1916,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 71. 15 January 1916, 2. “Dr Henson on Ideals of Empire,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 61. 15 March 1915, 18–19. G.R. Parkin, “The Call of Empire Day to the Nation,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 63. 15 May 1915, 36. “Empire Day,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 64. 15 June 1915, 43; “Empire Day,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 90. 15 June 1917, 44. M.E. Jersey [Lady Jersey], “To the Victoria Leagues Throughout the Empire,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 106. 15 December 1918, 77. “The Guildhall Meeting – Lady Jersey’s Speech,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 101. 15 July 1918, 50–1.

chapter four 1 Light, Forever England, 211. 2 “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Lest we Forget,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 152. 2 October 1922, 45. 3 “Sir James Dunlop Smith,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 135. 1 May 1921, 19. 4 “The New Deputy President,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 137. 1 July 1921, 29. 5 “The Election of Hon. President for Life of the Dowager Countess of Jersey,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 209. 1 July 1927, 26–7; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 May 1927, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 63. vlcf; Powell, Margaret, Countess of Jersey, 191. 6 “Lord Forster – Death in London,” Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January 1936. 7 Ethel Mortimer Landgon [Sydney, Australia] to Lady Forster, 20 August 1925, Forster family papers, Lepe House, Exbury, Southampton.

282

Notes to pages 176–9

8 Lady Forster to Lord Forster, 19 November 1926, Forster family papers, Lepe House, Exbury, Southampton. 9 “Royal President for the Victoria League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 256. 1 July 1931, 25. 10 In her autobiography, Princess Alice does not mention her time as president of the League. h.r.h. Princess Alice, For My Grandchildren. 11 The Story of the League 1901–1991, 47. 12 D’E Frith, “John Montagu Rendall,” Dictionary of National Biography 1941–1950, 720–1. 13 Mangan, The Games Ethic and Imperialism, 28–33. 14 The Story of the League 1901–1991, 46. 15 Ibid.; “Mrs. Ord Marshall: Founder of the League of the Empire,” The Times, 30 March 1931, 17. 16 In 1921, 58.48 per cent of all women professionals were teachers. Ten years later the total was 51.25 per cent. This made teaching the largest profession for women during this time. Beddoe, Back to Home and Duty, 77. In the interwar period, 66.8 per cent of all certificated teachers were women. In 1921, 56 per cent of all female teachers taught children under age 11. In 1930 the figure was 65.8 per cent. Oram, “Inequalities in the Teaching Profession,” 118–21. 17 “Annual Public Meeting: The Lady Forster,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 198. 1 August 1926, 33. 18 “Annual General Meeting: Mr. Albert Mansbridge,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 161. 1 July 1923, 28–9; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 April 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 98. vlcf. 19 “Annual General Meeting: Councillor David Adams, j.p.: Labour and the Victoria League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no 179. 1 July 1924, 30. 20 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 December 1924. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 179. vlcf. 21 “Report from Central: New Member of Executive,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 11 February 1925, 87. 22 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 18 November 1926; 15 May 1930. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 31–2, 208. vlcf. 23 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 21 May 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 253. vlcf. 24 At the 1928 general meeting she noted that although she disagreed with

Notes to pages 179–80

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

283

Leo Amery on many of his political views, during his speech to the Victoria League she was “in the unfortunate position that ... [she found herself] in agreement with every word Mr. Amery said on this occasion.” “Annual General Meeting: Mrs. Philip Snowden,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 217. 1 March 1928, 4–5. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 13 June 1929; 12 December 1929, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 168, 188. vlcf. Mitchell served on the league executive from 1926 to 1928. Alexander served from 1927 to 1928. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 28 April 1927; 16 June 1927; 19 April 1928. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 58, 68, 116. vlcf; Victoria League, Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1926–27 (London: Victoria League, 1927), 1; Victoria League, Twenty-Sixth Annual Report 1927–28 (London: Victoria League, 1928), 1. “Annual General Meeting: The Right Hon. Viscount Milner,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 137. 1 July 1921, 27; “Annual General Meeting: Neville Chamberlain,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 198. 1 August 1926, 34; “Annual General Meeting: The Right Hon L.S. Amery,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 222. 1 August 1928, 2–3. “Victoria League Ball,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 167. 1 January 1924, 53; “Half-Yearly Meeting of Central Council,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 270. 1 January 1929, 3. “Benjamin Disraeli,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 178. 1 December 1924, 52; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Lord Shaftesbury,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 165. 1 November 1923, 47; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Mr. Bonar Law,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 166. 1 December 1923, 51. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 June 1927. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 69. vlcf. Lady Allendale’s husband was not a major Liberal. Lord Allendale served as a Liberal mp from 1895–1907. He was a member of hm Household as ViceChamberlain from 1905–07 and as Captain, Yeomen of the Guard from 1907 to 1911. He served as a Lord-in-Waiting from 1911 to 1916. He died in 1923. Viscountess Harcourt had been a member of the executive from 1920 to 1921. Victoria League, Nineteenth Annual Report 1920–21 (London: Victoria League, 1921), 1. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 October 1924. Victoria

284

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Notes to pages 180–1

League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 69. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 23 March 1922 , Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 52. vlcf; Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 17 June 1926; 19 July 1928; 16 July 1931 , Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 8, 129–30, 263. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 May 1922, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 125. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 20 January 1921; 16 February 1922; 17 December 1925, 18 March 1926. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 7, 50, 244, 250. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 October 1930. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 270. vlcf. The Dominions of the British Empire signed the Versailles peace treaty as members of the British Empire Delegation, which was a major step towards imperial autonomy. Lloyd, The British Empire 1558–1995, 279–81; Darwin, “A Third British Empire?,” 64–87. Speakers at Victoria League meetings from the Dominions disagreed on the importance of this development. Col. the Hon. Sir James Allen, the High Commissioner in London for New Zealand from 1920 to 1926, believed that the separate signatures gave the Dominions the “possibilities of separation and independence.” The Chief Justice of Australia disagreed and noted the war had given the Dominions a new right to be heard in the councils of the Mother Country but did not give them any “new and independent standing in regard to the international relationships of the Empire.” “Annual General Meeting: Col. the Hon. Sir James Allen,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 125. 1 July 1920, 28–9; The Hon. Sir William Irvine (Chief Justice of Australia), “Annual Public Meeting: Questions of Dominion Status,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 173. 1 July 1924, 29. The author argues that “home rule” would be unworkable because of India’s large Muslim minority and the duality of the Indian constitution, with shared control of Parliament and the princely states. Sir Henry Sharp, “The Historical Side of the Present Position in India,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 250. 1 January 1931, 1–4. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 20 May 1926. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 3. vlcf. The

Notes to pages 181–3

40

41 42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

285

London Midland and Scottish Railway was heavily used by working-class commuters and its Tilbury line through the East of London terminated at Fenchurch Street. Whitehouse and Thomas, lms 150, 8, 71. “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The Fascista Movement in Italy – How ‘Young Italy’ Saved the Country,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 154. 1 December 1922, 53–4; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The New Italy,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 168. 1 February 1924, 7; “Benito Mussolini,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 180. 1 February 1925, 8. Pugh, “Hurray for the Blackshirts!”, ch. 3. In 1925–26 the league’s annual receipts fell to £1,903 17s and, as a result of the financial crisis of 1931, receipts fell to £2,163. Victoria League Annual Reports 1918–19 to 1932–33. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 21 May 1931; 15 October 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 251; 269. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 20 January 1921, 15 February 1923. Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 6, 88. vlcf. In 1926 Lady Middleton noted she “considered it quite impossible for the v.l. to go on depending for so much of its income on an Annual Ball.” Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 21 October 1926. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926 – May 1932), 28–9. vlcf. In 1928 bridge tournaments raised a substantial profit of £436, but usually average figures were about half that amount. Also in 1928 the most successful produce sale raised a net £89 for the League. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 19 January 1928, 21 June 1928, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926 – May 1932), 99, 125. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 17 May 1923, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 103, Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 17 January 1924; 20 November 1924; 28 May 1925; Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 176–7, 203; Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 19 January 1928; 18 July 1928. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 87, 173. vlcf. rt 1203, Box 33 / 2 – Victoria League 1924–1937, rt. Only the economic meltdown of 1931 led to a temporary reduction of the league’s grant from the Rhodes Trust. These figures were produced during the negotiations over amalgamation

286

51 52 53

54 55

56 57

58

59

60

61

62

Notes to pages 183–5

which are discussed later in this chapter. Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, 21 May 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 251–2. vlcf. Report 271, Rhodes Trustees, 24 April 1932, rt 1079 (1) – League of the Empire 1924–1949, Box 16 / 21, rt. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 6 October 1921, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 35. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 17 January 1924; 20 March 1924. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 131–2, 140. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 April 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 247. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 July 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 264–5. vlcf; “Council Meeting,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 256. 1 July 1931, 26–7. “Annual General Meeting: Lady Forster,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 256. 1 July 1931, 30. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 November 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 274. vlcf. South African branches expressed particular concerns over amalgamation. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 17 December 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 278. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 February 1932. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 287. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings 1921–27. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Books (December 1920–April 1926), 29, 67, 108, 158, (May 1926–May 1932), 74. vlcf. On league complaints over press coverage, see Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 July 1928. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 129. vlcf. Between 1919 and 1932, The Times published sixteen articles announcing Victoria League meetings. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings 1919–1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 12, 101–2, 158, 204, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 10, 33, 87, 121, 170, 213, 227, 251. vlcf.

Notes to pages 185–7

287

63 Victoria League, Seventeenth Annual Report 1918–19 (London: Victoria League, 1919), 31–47; Victoria League, Twenty-Ninth Annual Report 1930–31 (London: Victoria League, 1931), 27–38. 64 “Report from Central: Sheffield,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 10 November 1920, 34; “Report from the Branches: Revival of the Woking Branch,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 9 November 1921, 53; “Reports from the Branches: Revival of the Bath Branch,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 10 May 1922, 62. 65 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 17 May 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 101–2. vlcf. 66 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 184, 187. 67 “The Interchange of Teachers,” Report of the Board of Education 1925 / 26, 13. lect. 68 “The Interchange of Teachers,” League of Empire Review, ns 11. June 1923, 13–15. 69 Report of the Interchange of Teachers’ Scheme, 1907–23. London: League of the Empire, 1923), 3–5. Hereafter referred to as Report of the Interchange (1923). 70 “A Question in Parliament,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 4. September 1922, 2–3. 71 Women had replaced male teachers who served in the war but women also were attracted to the better salaries paid by commercial businesses and the civil service so that the teacher shortage became chronic as the war went on. Sherington, English Education, Social Change and War, 49. In the post-war period, the 1918 Education Act greatly increased the demand for teachers. Although women still dominated the profession they still held fewer prestigious positions. Despite their overall superiority of numbers, proportionally fewer women taught older students or held positions as headmistresses. Oram, “Inequalities in the Teaching Profession,” 118–21. 72 In the aftermath of the war two hundred overseas teachers held temporary appointments in Britain while one hundred British teachers migrated overseas to take temporary appointments in the Dominions. Report of the Interchange, (1923), 7. 73 These rules included that exchanges should be between teachers with “similar qualifications and experience”; that the period of exchange be for one year; that salaries abroad be paid by the educational authority of the country of origin; and that service abroad count for both increment and superannuation. They also stipulated that participating teachers be between twentyfive and forty-five years of age, with at least five years’ experience, and that no exchange teacher could accept permanent employment after the end of

288

74 75 76 77

78

79

80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Notes to pages 187–90

the exchange without the agreement of their original authority. Report of the Interchange (1923), 6. Ibid. Report of the Board of Education for 1925 / 26, 10. Dr Bernard Allen, “The Interchange of Teachers,” League of Empire Review, ns 12. January 1926, 22–4. New Zealand was the most generous, offering six bursaries of £50 each; the Rhodes Trust offered four of the same amount; and the league offered only a single bursary of £25 to an English teacher. Report of the Interchange (1923), 14. This fund was set up to commemorate a longtime league worker and gave out grants and loans to teachers in need. It never totalled more than £200. “Emmie Baggallay Fund,” lect. The Interchange of Teachers: Being a Short Account of the Aims and Work of the League of the Empire (London: General Committee of the League of the Empire, 1934), 35. Hereafter referred to as Interchange of Teachers (1934). The co-operating overseas authorities were: Canada (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan); Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania); South Africa (Cape Province, Natal, and Transvaal); New Zealand; Rhodesia; and Newfoundland. The Interchange of Teachers (1934), 7–8. Report of the Board of Education for 1925 / 26, 14–15. Dr Bernard Allen, “The Interchange of Teachers,” League of Empire Review, ns 12. January 1926, 22–4. M.P. Hansen, “Interchange of Teachers,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 1. April–May 1922, 6–8. Report of the Interchange, (1923), 11, 15; “Editorial,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 1. April–May 1922, 1–2. Report of the Board of Education for 1925 / 26, 25. “Correspondence,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 4. September 1922, 14–16. Philos [sic] , “Learning Plus Experience,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 10. April–May 1923, 4–8; The Interchange of Teachers (1934), 33. The Interchange of Teachers (1934), 33. Popular London and area landmarks visited included the port of London, Greenwich, University College, St Paul’s Cathedral, Parliament, Hampton Court Palace, Lambeth Palace, and Hampstead. Outside London, the league organized trips to Oxford and Cambridge, Eton, Stratford, Canterbury, St

Notes to pages 190–1

90 91

92

93

94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102

103

289

Alban’s, Wells, Stonehenge, Bath, and Salisbury. “League Notes – London,” League of Empire Review, ns 4. September 1922, 13; “League Notes: Interchange of Teachers,” League of Empire Review, ns 14. June 1926, 18–19; “London (League Arrangements),” League of Empire Review, ns 6. November 1922, 14–15; The Interchange of Teachers (1934), 9. On the London Exchange Teachers’ Club, see Davidige, “The London Exchange Teachers’ Club,” 6–9. Edwin Guillet, “One Queen, One Flag: A Short History of the League of the British Commonwealth and Empire and of Teacher Exchange.” Unpublished manuscript written for the Toronto branch of the league. (Toronto, 1953), 15–16. lect; Guillet, In the Cause of Education, 282–3. “A Home Centre for Overseas Teachers,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 13. Spring Number, 1926, 23–4; Report of the Special Education Conference (London: League of the Empire, 1926), 46–7. These figures were produced during the negotiations over amalgamation. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 21 May 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 251–2. vlcf. Interchange of Teachers (1934), 18. Nicholson, Singled Out, 126–7. Hammerton, Emigrant Gentlewomen; Jackel, ed., A Flannel Shirt and Liberty. Female teachers consistently earned about four-fifths the salary of their male counterparts in the interwar periods. All teachers had their salaries reduced through cuts following the Geddes Report in 1921 and during the financial crisis of 1931. In time these cuts were restored but they led to further insecurity. Married female teachers also had to face a determined postwar campaign by education authorities to replace them by unemployed male teachers. Partington, Women Teachers in the Twentieth Century, 25–6, 28–36. Woollacott, To Try Her Fortune in London. “A Glorious Year in Canada,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 3. July–August 1922, 10–13. Interchange of Teachers (1934), 33. An Overseas Teacher in London, “The Pleasures of Travel,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 1. April–May 1922, 13–15. “London (League Arrangements),” League of Empire Review, ns 6. November 1922, 14–15; “Xmas Visit to Italy,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 12. January 1926, 4. “A Day at Leiden,” League of Empire Review, ns 11. June 1923, 7–9; “A Gallant

290

104 105 106 107 108

109

110

111 112 113 114

115

116

117

Notes to pages 191–3

Dutch City,” League of Empire Review, ns 14. June 1926, 6–14; Report of the Special Education Congress, passim. Bingham, “An Era of Domesticity,” 225–33. Report of the Interchange (1923), 15. Report of the Board of Education for 1925/26, 26. Philos [sic] , “Learning Plus Experience,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 10. April–May 1923, 7. The activities and attitudes of middle-class colonial teachers in London are a non-sexual version of the English phenomenon described in Koven, Slumming. Report of the Interchange (1923), 12. The settlement movement in Britain had its origins with Toynbee Hall, which was founded in 1884 by socially concerned Oxford dons and students. Toynbee Hall was to serve as a means to provide education and refined recreation for the poor and “to inquire into the condition of the poor and to consider and advance plans calculated to improve their welfare.” Briggs and Macartney, Toynbee Hall, 9. Sara Evans, “Tommy Junior,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 3. July–August 1922, 7–9; For a related example, see League of the Empire, Report of the Interchange (1923), 12. “Annual Meetings, Guildhall, June 30, 1922: The Right Hon. The Earl of Balfour,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 25–6. Morgan, “A Happy Holiday,” 109, 122–3, 162–3. Woollacott, To Try Her Fortune in London, 97. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 16 June 1927; 20 October 1927; 25 March 1928; 19 April 1928; 21 June 1928; 11 December 1930; 19 February 1931. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926– May 1932), 68, 80, 115–16, 230, 239. vlcf. “Victoria League Hospitality,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 175, 1 September 1924, 37–8; Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 19 July 1923 and 18 October 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 113, 117–18. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 15 July 1926. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 19. vlcf; “Imperial Conference: v.l. Welcome to Prime Ministers,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 201. 1 November 1926, 45; “Imperial Conference: v.l. Welcome to Prime Ministers,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 248. 1 November 1930, 41. For an example, see “Victoria League Hospitality,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 175. 1 September 1924, 37–8.

Notes to pages 193–5

291

118 Victoria League Annual Report 1928–29, 4. 119 Victoria League Annual Report 1931–32, 4. 120 Very few works on interwar tourism to the United Kingdom exist. The best is Ogilvie, The Tourist Movement, 73, 98. 121 Walthem, “The British Empire Exhibition of 1924,” 34–9; Hewlett, ed., A History of Wembley, 173–90; Clendinning, “Exhibiting a Nation,” 79–107; Stephen, “The White Man’s Grave,” 102–28. 122 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 17 January 1924; 21 February 1924; 20 March 1924; 10 April 1924. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 131, 135–6, 141, 146. vlcf. “British Empire Exhibition,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 168. 1 February 1924, 5; “British Empire Exhibition: Empire Visitors’ Information Bureau,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 169. 1 March 1924, 9. 123 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 15 November 1923; 20 March 1924. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 123, 141. vlcf. 124 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings of 17 February 1921; 23 March 1922; 20 July 1922; 19 July 1923; 15 November 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 10, 53, 69, 113, 123. vlcf. 125 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 17 February 1927; 17 March 1927. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 46, 52. vlcf. 126 Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 28 April 1927; 19 May 1927; 16 June 1927. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926– May 1932), 57, 62, 68. vlcf. 127 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 15 December 1927. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 94–5. vlcf. 128 “Education in Victoria – Seen Through English Eyes,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 259. 1 October 1931, 43–4; Miss L.M. Ashford, “The School – A Melting-Pot,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 180. 1 February 1925, 6–7. 129 “Winter Council Meeting,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 262. 1 January 1932, 55. 130 For the President of the Board of Education’s view of the future influx of students, see “Speech by the President of the Board of Education, The Rt. Hon. H.A.L. Fisher at Sir Gregory Foster’s Second Lecture at University College on “The University of London, its History, Present Resources and

292

131

132 133

134 135

136 137

138

139

Notes to pages 195–6

Future Possibilities,” 20 February 1922. Foster Papers, Mss Add. 103 VIII, University College, London. In 1910–11 the University of London had 4,424 students; in 1920–21 it had 8,099 students; and in 1930–31 it had reached 11,452 students. Harte, The University of London 1836–1986, 195–213. Pepper, A Place to Remember, 13. For support by L.S. Amery, see Pepper, 13; “London House: The Lord Mayor’s Appeal,” The Times, 3 June 1930; and “A Hostel for Empire Students: Mr. Amery on University Friendships,” Birmingham Post, 3 June 1930. Frederick Crauford Goodenough was explicit that London House was to be “chiefly for Dominion and Colonial Students of European origin (that is, of White Parentage),” Goodenough to Stanley Baldwin, 21 May 1930. File 1/3D “Mansion House Meeting: Sundry Letters,” Archives of Goodenough College. For letters relating to London House’s racial bar, see Frederick Grubb to the Lord Mayor, 16 June 1930; Goodenough to Charles Wood, 23 October 1930; D.R. Wiginwardene to F.C. Goodenough 17 June 1930 and 3 July 1930. W.M. Goodenough later noted that the racial bar was implemented because of the strong views of “one or more of the Dominions” at the time London House was created. W.M. Goodenough to Lieut. Commander David M. Carey, 24 May 1945, File 29 / 4. “Admission of students of noneuropean origin, 1945–49 (with some 1930 papers),” Archives of Goodenough College. “Students from Malaya,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 221. 1 July 1928, 2–3. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 19 October 1922; 15 February 1923; 19 April 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 72, 88, 97. vlcf. Yong and McKenna, The Kuomintang Movement in British Malaya 1912–1949, 44–5. “Chinese Students from Malaya – memorandum for the Executive embodying the results of discussion by the special sub-committee (Lady Malcolm, Sir Charles Bayley and Sir Reginald Antrobus). [17 May 1923]. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 16 June 1927, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), (n.p.); Report of the Special Hospitality Committee. (Minutes of the Special Hospitality Committee 1924–28). vlcf. Robert Heussler has noted that Morkill did his job well and was not regarded as either “anti-Chinese or unreasonably pro-Malay.” Heussler, British Rule in Malaya, 205–7, 298.

Notes to pages 196–7

293

140 Of the fifty students included in Morkill’s report, the majority were from either Singapore or Penang (twenty-one and thirteen respectively), with much smaller numbers from Kuala Lumpur, Mallacca, Perak, and Ipoh. The popular years for arrivals were 1926 and 1928, when eleven and ten students arrived respectively. “Mr. Morkill’s Report on Students.” Students from Malaya Committee Meeting, July 1930. Minutes of the Students from Malaya Committee 1928–42. vlcf. 141 A.G. Morkill, “New Arrivals,” Report to the Special Hospitality Committee, 9 May 1928. Minutes of the Special Hospitality Committee 1924–28. For the guardianship issue in particular, see Students from Malaya Committee Meeting, 13 April 1929. Minutes of the Students from Malaya Committee 1928–42, 60–1; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 April 1929. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 161. vlcf. 142 For students insufficiently informed of regulations for entry into universities or Inns of Court, see Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 15 October 1925. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 219. vlcf. 143 “Report on Students,” Students from Malaya Committee Meeting, 16 October 1928. Minutes of the Students from Malaya Committee 1928–42. 144 For more recent work on English sports and their impact on the native populations of Empire, see Johnson, British Imperialism, 209–11; Seecharan, Muscular Learning. 145 Bush, “Edwardian Ladies and the ‘Race’ Dimensions,” 287–8. 146 Lees, “Being British in Malaya, 1890–1940,” 76–101. 147 Rhodes intended his scholarships to be held by men from America, Germany, Rhodesia, South Africa, Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Bermuda. Allen, Forty Years of the Rhodes Scholarships, 4–7; Rhodes Scholarships, passim. Although his will stipulated there was to be no discrimination in selection “on account of religion or race, Rhodes was thinking of the English-Dutch division [in South Africa], not of overcoming colour bars.” Rotberg, The Founder, 667–8. London House ended its colour bar in 1949. See W.M. Goodenough to Brigadier E.C. Pepper, 5 August 1949. File 29 / 4. “Admission of students of non-european origin, 1945–49 (with some 1930 papers),” Archives of Goodenough College. 148 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 23 April 1925. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 196. vlcf. 149 “Meeting of Central Council,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 234. 1 August 1929, 29.

294

Notes to pages 197–200

150 Students from Malaya Committee Meeting, 15 October 1930. Minutes of the Students from Malaya Committee 1928–42; Minutes from Executive Committee Meetings, 17 October 1929; 20 November 1930; 16 July 1931; Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 179, 226, 261–2. vlcf. 151 Students from Malaya Committee Meetings, 26 October 1938; February 1939; 17 February 1942. Minutes of the Students from Malaya Committee 1928–42. vlcf. 152 For school readers, see chapter 2, n4. For children’s schoolbooks and more entertaining texts, see chapter 2, n5. For cadets and Boy Scouts, see chapter 2, n8 and Springhall, Empire, Youth and Society. For public and secondary schools, see chapter 2, n3. For imperialism in the curriculum, see Aldrich, “Imperialism in the Study and Teaching of History,” 23–38. Bernard Porter has taken the opposite view and argued that working-class students rarely encountered imperialism in the classroom, but his interpretation is not widely supported. See Porter, The Absent Minded Imperialists, ch. 9. 153 The three textbooks in the series were advertised in every issue of League of Empire Review from April–May 1922 to the Spring of 1926. They were also advertised in the Report of the Special Education Conference. 154 “Overseas Teachers Conference,” The Times, 9 January 1919, 8. 155 “The Imperial Education Conference in Toronto,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, New Series, 1, April–May 1922, 4–6. 156 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 182. 157 Greenlee asserts that this conference marked the shelving of the League of the Empire’s teacher exchange program. However, he is right to point out that the 1923 conference revealed the impossibility of achieving the fartherreaching goals of the pre-war league, such as imperial educational federation. Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 182–3. See also “A Link of Empire,” The Times, 7 June 1923, 15; “Health in the Schools: The Imperial Education Conference,” The Times, 3 July 1923, 19; “Education in the Empire: Local and Central Control,” The Times, 5 July 1923, 9. 158 The Times was very supportive of the exchange idea as a means of spreading imperial unity. “Schoolmasters Abroad,” The Times, 21 July 1924, 13. See also “Teachers of the Empire: London Conference Opened,” The Times, 15 July 1924, 19; “The Interchange of Teachers: Imperial Education Conference,” The Times, 16 July 1924, 11; “Empire Education for Teachers,” The Times, 17 July 1924, 11. Other topics beyond exchange were discussed in “Imperial Education Conference: Dalton Plan Criticized,” The Times, 18 July 1924, 11; “Native Education on the Gold Coast,” The Times, 21 July 1924, 14.

Notes to pages 200–3

295

159 “A Conference in Paris,” League of Empire Review, ns 13, Spring 1926, 16; Report of the Special Education Conference (London: League of the Empire, 1926), 41–3; “League of the Empire: Educational Meeting in Paris,” The Times, 26 July 1926, 12. 160 Newton, “The Imperial Education Conference,” 443–5; Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 187. There was no coverage of this conference in The Times. 161 The Story of the League 1901–1991, 47. 162 Greenlee, Education and Imperial Unity, 186–7. 163 For example see: League of the Empire, Report of the Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations Convened by the League of the Empire [13–17 July 1912] (Westminster: League of the Empire, 1912). 164 F.G. Reedy, “Education in Outlying Districts: Correspondence Classes in Western Australia,” League of Empire Review, ns 9, March 1923, 6–9; “Out Back Schools,” League of Empire Review, ns 9. March 1923, 8–9; “Education in the Falkland Islands,” League of Empire Review, ns 13. Spring 1926, 20–3. 165 Another member of the League of the Empire Tour, 1925, “Impressions of Canada,” League of Empire Review, ns 13. Spring 1926, 14. 166 Dr Bernard Allen, “The Organization of Education in the Mother Country,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 13. Spring 1926, 1–4; Dr Bernard Allen, “The Organization of Education in the Mother Country,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 14. June 1926, 2–5. 167 Dr Bernard Allen, “Education in London,” League of Empire Review, ns 8. February 1923, 2–5. 168 Richardson, “Education and Politics,” 148–50. 169 Ernest Young, “Round About the School,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 11. June 1923, 10–11. 170 For general developments, see Ernest Young, “New Movements in Education,” League of Empire Review, ns 4. July–August 1922, 4–6, and “New Movements in Education,” League of Empire Review, ns 5. October 1922, 8–10. For the Dalton Plan, see Ernest Young, “Modern Developments in Education: The Dalton Plan,” League of Empire Review, ns 6. November 1922, 9–10; T. Dean, “The Dalton System: Notes on Organization for Individual Work,” League of Empire Review, ns 13. Spring 1926, 18–19. For education weeks, see Ernest Young, “New Movements in Education: Education Weeks,” League of Empire Review, ns 4. September 1922, 4–5. 171 With the high hopes raised by the act among the working-class, disappointment was bound to follow as the act did not create a single national system nor did it greatly increase working-class opportunities for secondary educa-

296

172

173 174

175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

186 187 188 189 190 191 192

Notes to pages 203–8

tion, Sherington, English Education, Social Change and War, 110–12, 117–20. For examples of winning essays see “Cecil Rhodes: The Man and His Work,” by Elizabeth Cluer of Harrow County Girls’ School, The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 145, 1 March 1922, 12; and “The Union Jack: What it Stands For,” by James MacKenzie of Stifford Council School, Essex, The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 125, 1 July 1920, 32. “Visual Instruction,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 148. 1 June 1922, 22. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 21 February 1924; 10 April 1924. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 135, 149. vlcf. “Preface,” W.L. Grant, Canada, Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire. No. 3 (London: Victoria League, 1920). rcs. J.B. Condliffe, M.A. New Zealand, Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire, No. 1 (London: Victoria League, 1920), 2–3, 16, 29. Condliffe, 29–30. The Hon. Crawford Vaughan, Australia, Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire. No. 2 (London: Victoria League, 1920), 4. Vaughan, 10–11. Vaughan, 16–18. Grainger, “Crawford Vaughan” in Australian Dictionary of Biography vol. 12: 1891–1939, 313. Vaughan, 23–6. Grant, 4. Grant, 7–8, 10–11, 14–17. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 23 March 1922; 18 May 1922. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 54, 61. vlcf. W. Kupferburger, The Union of South Africa, Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire, No. 4. (London: Victoria League, 1924), 22–5. Kupferburger, 13–15. Kupferburger, 35. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 May 1922. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 61. vlcf. McCall, Women’s Institutes, 10–11; Andrews, The Acceptable Face of Feminism. Victoria League Annual Reports 1919–20 to 1930–31. “Annual General Meeting: Education,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 28.

Notes to pages 208–9

297

193 Jersey, Dowager Countess of, “Annual Public Meeting, Guildhall, 3 June 1924: Education,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 173. 1 July 1924, 26; Miss Christy, “Annual Meeting of the Central Council: Women’s Institutes and the Victoria League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 151. 1 September 1922, 38–9; “Annual Meetings: Education,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 28. 194 “University Extension Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 156. 1 February 1923, 5; “University Extension Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 141. 1 November 1921, 45; “University Extension Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 152. 2 October 1922, 43. 195 For lectures on South Africa, see “Lectures at 22, Eccleston Square,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 154. 1 December 1922, 51; on Borneo, see “Lectures in March, 1924,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 169. 1 March 1924, 9; “Victoria League House Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 204. 1 February 1927, 5; on Burma, see “Lectures at 22, Eccleston Square,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes. no. 191. 1 January 1926, 53; on Kenya and East Africa, see “Lectures at 22, Eccleston Square,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 191. 1 January 1926, 53, Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 1 July 1931, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932). vlcf; on West Africa and Nigeria, see “Victoria League House Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 204. 1 February 1927, 5, “Victoria League Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 224. 1 October 1928, 5; on New Guinea, see “Lectures in the V.L. House,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 217. 1 March 1928, 5; “Victoria League Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 248. 1 November 1930, 41. 196 For public lectures on India during the Round Table Discussions, see “Victoria League Lectures,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 248. 1 November 1930, 41; Minutes of Victoria League Executive Committee Meeting, 16 October 1930; 16 July 1931; Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 224, 264. vlcf. 197 Between 1921 and 1931 Canada received 1.198 million immigrants. Although this was less than the pre-war surge of immigration, by 1931 one in three of all prairie residents had been born in another country and the British proportion of the total prairie population had fallen to 50 per cent. Friesen, The Canadian Prairies, 244, 247. These figures led to a rise of nativism. See Palmer, Patterns of Prejudice. 198 Pickles, Female Imperialism and National Identity, 64–8. 199 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 10 November 1921. Executive Committee Minute Book, (December 1920–April 1926), 40. vlcf.

298

Notes to pages 209–11

200 Jersey, Dowager Countess of, “Annual Meetings: Education,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 28. 201 “School Libraries for Western Canada,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 142. 1 December 1921, 49. 202 Book and Newspaper Sub-Committee Meeting, 19 February 1930. vlcf. 203 “Canadian Prairie School Libraries,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 154. 1 December 1922, 52. 204 “Books and Newspapers,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 229. 1 March 1929, 28. 205 For examples of books sent to the more remote parts of the Empire, see Book and Newspaper Sub-Committee Meeting, 10 May 1923; 25 November 1924. vlcf. 206 For example, the mayor of Bathurst made an appeal for “British papers to combat American papers.” Book and Newspaper Sub-Committee Meeting, 30 January 1923. vlcf. 207 Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting , 15 February 1923. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 89. vlcf. 208 Book and Newspaper Sub-Committee Meeting, 1 March 1921, vlcf. 209 E.B. Sargant, “The Victoria League,” United Empire, vol. 6, ns, (1915), 591; The Dowager Countess of Jersey, “Annual Meetings: Book and Newspaper Scheme,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 28; Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 21 October 1926; 18 November 1926; Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 26, 32. vlcf; Victoria League Annual Report 1920–21, 24. 210 J.H.L. Ridley, “The Cinema in Schools,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 129. 1 November 1920, 46–7. 211 “Reports from the Branches: Crowborough,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 13 May 1925, 91. vlcf; “Yorkshire Branch,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 230. 1 April 1929, 13; “Navy Film at Ipswich,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 188. 1 October 1925, 41. 212 “Empire Films,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 210. 1 August 1927, 34–5. 213 The league cancelled an Educational Film Exhibition because films were not judged to be satisfactory in 1921. Six years later they were still discussing where best to find suitable titles. “Report from Education Committee,” Minutes of the Branches Committee, 4 May 1921, 44. vlcf; “Educational Films,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 207. 1 May 1927, 18. 214 On Empire Shopping and the Primrose League, see Hendley, “Patriotic Leagues,” ch. 5.

Notes to pages 212–16

215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

226 227

228 229 230 231 232

233

234

299

MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire, 1, 9–10. Darwin, “Imperialism in Decline?,” 657. Darwin, “A Third British Empire?” 66. “Annual General Meeting: The Dowager Countess of Jersey,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 149. 1 July 1922, 27. “True Imperialism,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 156. 1 February 1923, 3. “Annual Public Meeting – Speech by Mr. Amery – The Greatest Free Empire,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 185. 1 July 1925, 29. “Annual General Meeting: Councillor David Adams, j.p.: Labour and the Victoria League,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 173. 1 July 1924, 30. “Annual General Meeting: Mrs. Philip Snowden,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 217. 1 March 1928, 4–5. Jersey, Dowager Countess of, “Empire Day,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 207. 1 May 1927, 1. Woollacott, Gender and Empire, 130. The best recent work re-examining the relationships of British imperialism within the framework of domesticated metaphors is Hall and Rose, eds, At Home with the Empire, esp. 1–31. Ibid., 1. The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 210, 1 August 1927, 30. Cecilia Morgan has shown how early twentieth-century English Canadian visitors to Britain often had this exact sentiment. Morgan, ‘A Happy Holiday,’ 122–3. For more on this confrontation, see Lloyd, The British Empire, 291–2. Sir Harry Reichel, “The British Empire and World Peace,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 10. April–May 1923, 1–5. The Right Hon. Sir Frederick Pollock, “The Unity of the British Empire,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 2. June 1922, 1–5. Gorman, Imperial Citizenship. Bush, “The Right Sort of Woman,” 385–409; Chilton, Agents of Empire; Pickles, Female Imperialism and National Identity, ch. 3; and “A Link in ‘The Great Chain of Empire Friendship,’” 29–50. “Welcoming Soldiers’ Wives: Report of the Hospitality Committee, Victoria League of New South Wales,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 124. 1 June 1920, 22–3. The official government handbook issued by the Overseas Settlement Department of the Colonial Office urged women thinking of emigration to contact the sosbw and mentioned that this organization worked in co-operation with a number of other groups, including the Victoria League. Hand-

300

235

236

237 238

239 240 241 242

243 244

245

Notes to pages 216–17

book for Women Who are Thinking of Settling Overseas (London: hmso, 1923). See also Kennedy, “Empire Migration in Post-War Reconstruction,” 409; Blakeley, “The Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women,” 422. For general co-operation, see “Report of s.o.s.b.w. for year ending December 31, 1920,” 8; “Third Annual Report, 1922,” 10, 17, 28. in s.o.s.b.w. Annual Reports 1920–1924, The Women’s Library, London Metropolitan University. For joint conferences, see “Minutes of Conference, Australia and New Zealand, June 25, 1920,” 2–3. sosbw, 1 / sos / 1 / 35. For the settlement of ex-servicewomen, see Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 January 1922. For the benevolent fund, see Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 October 1922, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 47. vlcf. The Victoria League did have three representatives sitting on the Australia and New Zealand committee of the Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women from the time of its formation in 1928: Dame Meriel Talbot, Lady Forster, and Gladys Pott. Australia and New Zealand Committee Minute Book, sosbw, 1 / sos / 1 / 32. “The Victoria Leagues Overseas,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 161. 1 July 1923, 28. Jersey, Dowager Countess of, “Annual Public Meeting, Guildhall, 3 June 1924: Settlers’ Welcome,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 173. 1 July 1924, 26. Victoria League Annual Reports 1920–21 to 1930–31. Gothard, “The healthy, wholesome British domestic girl,” 73. Chilton, 69–70. Annual Meeting of the Central Council: Lady Allardyce, The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 151. 1 September 1922, 38; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 July 1928. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932). vlcf. Blakeley, 438. For example, a 1923 league meeting discussed the scare caused by a scurrilous story about the unspecified fate of a young Englishwoman in Australia that was published as “An Emigrant Tragedy” in the popular publication John Bull. Seven years later other anxious parents were contacting the Victoria League about the fates of their daughters in Australia. Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings, 19 April 1923; 20 March 1930. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 96, 207. vlcf. “Annual General Meeting: Mr. R. Clive Teece, K.C.,” The Victoria League

Notes to pages 217–19

246 247 248 249

250 251

252

253 254 255

256 257

258

301

Monthly Notes, no. 234. 1 August 1929, 31. For the problems of isolation, loneliness, and adjusting to a new way of life in the Canadian West, see Saskatchewan Correspondent, “Englishwomen on the Prairie,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 232. 1 June 1929, 23–4. Gothard, 73, 80–3. Chilton, 75. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting , 15 June 1922. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 63. vlcf. “Migration,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 195. 1 May 1926, 18. This resolution from the Canterbury, New Zealand, branch did not specify how the government could take “greater care.” There was no suggestion of either restricting financial assistance to migrants or issuing visas. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 18 October 1928. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 63. vlcf. For positive comment by the Victoria League branch in South Australia, see Minutes of meeting of Australia and New Zealand Committee, 16 May 1929, at Caxton House, London. Australia and New Zealand Committee Minute Book, sosbw, 1 / sos / 1 / 32. For more generally positive remarks on the quality of single female settlers from Britain, see “Half-Yearly Council Meeting: Mrs. Stuart Black,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 239. 1 January 1930, 49; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 17 January 1929. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 63. vlcf. Gothard notes that 564 women trained at Market Harborough sailed for Australia, but only 2.3 per cent of the total number of women assisted under the Empire Settlement Act received any type of training at all; Gothard, 87. Ibid., 86. Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women 1919–1962: Guide to Sources, 9. sosbw. Minutes of meeting of Australia and New Zealand Committee, 17 October 1932 at Caxton House, London. Australia and New Zealand Committee Minute Book, sosbw, 1 / sos / 1 / 32. Meredith, “Imperial Images,” 30–6. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 November 1925. Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920–April 1926), 223. vlcf. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 13 December 1928, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 144.

302

259

260 261

262

263 264

265

266 267

Notes to pages 219–20

vlcf. For the enthusiasm of the New Zealand branch of the Victoria League and the Victoria League’s Canadian affiliate, the iode, see “Empire Shopping Week,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 195. 1 May 1926, 18; “Empire Trade,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 221. 1 July 1928, 27; “Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 258. 1 September 1931, 37. For the overt partisanship of Empire Shopping (as well as Empire recipes and other forms of imperial consumerism), see Trentmann, Free Trade Nation, 230–2. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 21 July 1927, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 73. vlcf. The numbers of women working in domestic service fell between 1911 to 1921 from 39 per cent of working women to 33 per cent, but it rose again by 1931 to 35 per cent. That being said, it remained an unpopular occupation, because of long hours, low pay, and limited time off. Those in the profession tended to be less docile than previous generations and the labour shortage gave them greater bargaining power. According to Deirdre Beddoe, “viewed from the perspective of the middle-class employer ‘the servant problem’ was one of the great issues of the 1920s and 1930s.” Beddoe, Back to Home and Duty, 60–4. “Victoria League Empire Day Competitions for Schools,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 130. 1 December 1920, 50; “Empire Day at Bath,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 184. 1 June 1925, 21; “An account of the Empire Day Celebrations at the Sittingbourne County School for Girls,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 127. 1 September 1920, 38–9; Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, 19 March 1931, Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932), 242. vlcf. “Result of Empire Day Essay Competition,” League of Empire Review, ns 6. November 1922, 14–15. “Royal Messages,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 3. July–August 1922, 1; “Empire Day: Royal Telegrams,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 11. June 1923, 3–4; “Empire Day in Hyde Park,” League of Empire Review, ns 3. July–August 1922, 2–3. “Our Empire Commonplace Book,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 9. March 1923, 13; Dr F.H. Hayward, “Service Celebration of ‘England, the Mother of Nations,’” League of Empire Review, ns 10. April–May 1923, 15–23. Springhall, “Lord Meath, Youth and Empire,” 107. “Social and Political – Talk of the Town: Empire Day in Hyde Park,”

Notes to pages 220–1

268 269 270

271

272 273

274 275

276

277

303

Daily Graphic, 24 May 1919, 10; “Gay Empire Day Festivities,” Daily Graphic, 24 May 1919, 6. Horn, The Victorian and Edwardian Schoolchild, 145. MacKenzie, 233. H. Morrison, The Times, 28 April 1934, as quoted in Dean, “The Contrasting Attitudes of the Conservatives and Labour Parties,” 89. For more on Labour opposition to Empire Day, see Cowper, “British Education,” 198–9. “Empire Day Supplement: Empire Day,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 10. April–May 1923, 13; “The Empire Day Parade in Hyde Park,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 9. March 1923, 15. Dr F.H. Hayward, “Service Celebration of ‘England,’ the Mother of Nations,” League of Empire Review, New Series 10. April–May 1923, 17, 20. The league’s organization of the parade was mentioned in The Times throughout the period, though coverage was reduced to a bare minimum. For example, see “League of the Empire – The King’s Message to the Hyde Park Parade,” The Times, 20 May 1932, 9. English, “Empire Day in Britain, 1904–1958,” 261. “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: The Sister Languages of India and of England,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 157. 1 March 1923, 11–12; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Village Life in India – Its Kindliness,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 158. 1 April 1923, 15; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Rice Growing in Bengal,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 223. 1 September 1928, 3; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Contributed by Spencer College, St. John’s Newfoundland,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 239. 1 January 1930, 3–4; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages: Jamaica,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 209. 1 July 1927, 27–8; “Boys’ and Girls’ Pages.” Contribution from Winnipeg Schoolgirls, The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 224. 1 November 1928, 3–4. “Canterbury, New Zealand Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 263. 1 March 1932; “Queensland Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 264. 1 April 1932; “Jamaica Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 265. 1 May 1932, 77; “Maritzburg, Natal, Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 266. 1 June 1932, 80; “Essex Branch Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 269. 1 September 1932, 92–4; “East Suffolk and Ipswich Number,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 253. 1 April 1931, 14–15. “The Gold Fields Water Scheme of Western Australia,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 266. 1 June 1932, 22–3; “Home Making in South Africa,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 261. 1 January 1932, 56; “Life in South Africa,” The Victoria League Monthly Notes, no. 261. 1 January 1932, 56.

304

Notes to pages 222–5

278 Mabel Durham, “The Loveliest Spots in our Empire – As-Kas-Leo, Lake Kootenay, British Columbia,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 8. February 1923, 10–11; E. Montizambert, “The Loveliest Spots in Our Empire – Quebec, the Gateway of Canada,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 10. April–May 1923, 8–10; A New Zealander, “The Loveliest Spots in Our Empire – Bank’s Peninsula, N.Z.,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 5. October 1922, 6–8; An Australian [F.G. Atchison], “The Loveliest Spots in our Empire – Mount Buffalo Gorge,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 7. Xmas 1922, 8–9. 279 Irene Watts, “Poets of Empire – Kipling,” League of Empire Review, ns 8. February 1923, 12–13; Irene Watts, “Poets of Empire – Henry Newbolt (The Poet of England’s Sea Power),” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 9. March 1923, 10–11; Irene Watts, “Poets of the Empire – The Soldier Poets,” League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine, ns 11. June 1923, 11–13.

conclusion 1 Eksteins, The Rites of Spring. 2 Mosse, Fallen Soldiers, 196–8; Caedel, Pacifism in Britain, 1914–45, 56–86. 3 Wright, On Living in an Old Country. For the problems that British intellectuals have had with the idea of patriotism, see Rich, “Elite and Popular Culture,” 449–66. Miles Taylor has argued against simplistic models of patriotism that assume the modern rhetoric of citizenship and nationhood has been the exclusive province of the Right. Taylor, “John Bull,” 93–128. 4 Nicholas, “The Construction of a National Identity,” 127–45.

Bibliography

305

Bibliography

note on sources Primary evidence for this book comes from a variety of sources related to the three patriotic organizations in this study. While the bibliography gives a complete listing of all the collections used, these notes provide added information. Of the groups in this study, only the Victoria League has a fairly complete and organized archival collection. I found a complete record of minute books from a wide range of its committees for the 1914 to 1932 period in its own private archive at the Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship in Bayswater, London. I also found supplementary material for the Victoria League in the Royal Commonwealth Society Collections at Cambridge University, the Women’s Library of London Metropolitan University, and the London House Papers in the Archives of Goodenough College. The personal papers of several key figures, including Sir Edward Cook (Bodleian Library) and Violet Markham (London School of Economics and Political Science), were valuable. In addition, I examined the papers of Lady Jersey and Lady Forster. Lady Jersey’s papers at the Greater London Record Office were found to have nothing of value, save estate records. Lady Forster’s papers held in the family archive at Lepe House were useful. I found and read the publications of both organizations at the British Newspaper Library at Colindale and the British Library. Records for the National Service League and the League of the Empire were more scattered. For the first organization, the best sources were the personal papers of Lord Roberts and R.J.K. Mott, (National Army Museum, Chelsea), Lord Curzon (India Office Library, London, which is now the

306

Bibliography

India Office Private Papers in the British Library), Lord Milner and Lady Milner (Bodleian Library, Oxford), and Patrick Hannon (Parliamentary Archives). These personal papers yielded valuable memoranda and correspondence as well as copies of important reports. The archives of the Macmillan publishers at the British Library also had some useful material, as did the Royal Commonwealth Society Collections at Cambridge. The League of the Empire’s records suffered bomb damage during the Second World War. Some available papers, including reports, scrapbooks, and amateur histories, survive at the headquarters of the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers in Clapham, London. I also consulted the personal papers of league figures, including Ernest Gardner (University College, London), F.J.C. Hearnshaw (King’s College, London), and Albert (A.F.) Pollard (University of London). The papers of the league’s President, Sir Frederick Pollock, were also damaged during the Second World War, but some of his correspondence has been preserved in other personal collections. At Rhodes House Library at Oxford, I used a number of important reports by the Rhodes Trustees concerning both the League of the Empire and the Victoria League. Fortunately, I had access to a good range of publications of the League of the Empire, including annual reports, periodicals, and textbooks, which have been preserved mostly at the British Library and at the University of Toronto. I consulted a large range of contemporary pamphlets and books at the Imperial War Museum, the British Library, McGill University, McMaster University, and the University of Toronto, as well as general periodicals at the Colindale Newspaper Library.

primary sources Personal Papers Sir Edward Tyas Cook Papers. Diaries. Diary G (13.1.12–24.4.16), Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Curzon Papers. Mss Eur F 112 / 166–168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. Forster Family Papers, Lepe House, Exbury, Southampton. Sir Gregory Foster Papers. Mss Add. 103 VIII, University College, London. 1st Viscount Hanworth Papers. (Ernest Murray Pollock,), Mss Eng. hist c. 945. fols. 27–28. Bodleian Library, Oxford University.

Bibliography

307

Ernest Gardner Papers. Ms. Add. No. 16, University College, London Library Services, Special Collections. Arthur Lehman Goodhart Papers. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. – The Editor, “Sir Frederick Pollock,” Law Quarterly Review, no. CCX (April 1937), 204–06; Mss Eng. hist c. 2889, x. Films 11 / 20. Reel 20 of 71. – “Pollock 1845–1937.” Mss Eng. hist c. 2910, Goodhart fol. 62–63. x. Films 11 / 25. Reel 25 of 71. Patrick Hannon Papers. hnn / 11 / 2 “British Workers League” (1919–1921), Parliamentary Archives. F.J.C. Hearnshaw Papers. King’s College London, K / PP 13 / 11. 1915–1920. K.C. Volunteer Section. Macmillan Archives, British Library. Mss Add 55 027. vol. XXCLII. fols. 111–12, 118–19, 123–4. Violet Markham Papers. Ms 1 / 11. London School of Economics and Political Science. Lord Milner Papers. Mss Milner dep. 355 fols. 63. Microfilm X. films 9 / 160. Reel 160 of 267. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Violet Milner Papers, Ms Violet Milner 56, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. R.J.K. Mott papers, National Army Museum. Gilbert Murray Papers. Mss Gilbert Murray 405, Fol. 137–38. Microfilm, x.film 1 / 118. Reel 118. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Albert Pollard Papers, Senate House Archives, University of London. [uncatalogued]. Sir Frederick Pollock. Rough Manuscript, “The Contract of Public and Private Law,” Mss Eng. hist c. 3113 Goodhart fol. 25–30. Papers of Arthur Lehman Goodhart, Microfilm, x. Films 11 / 66. Reel 66 of 71. Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Lord Roberts Papers. National Army Museum, Chelsea, London. – Notes on British Policy at the outbreak of the 1st World War Aug.-Oct. 1914. Accession Number Ms 7101-23-203-2. – Press cuttings, obituary notices, presented to Lady Roberts, May 1915. Accession Number Ms 7101-23-136-1. – Private Letter Books. Accession Number Ms 7101-23-125-3. – Speeches 1878–1914. Accession Number Ms 7101-23-126-12. John Satterfield Sandars Papers. Mss Eng.hist.a.21; 751. fols. 73–74.; c. 753. fols. 39–40; c. 767; Fols. 34–37; c. 768 fols. 63–70. x. film 2/14; 2 / 15. Bodleian Library, Oxford University.

308

Bibliography

The League of the Empire Papers a) reports Annual General Reports of the League of the Empire 1904–13. London: League of the Empire, 1905–13. League of the Empire, Report of the Negociations [sic] for Amalgamation between the League of the Empire and the Victoria League. London: League of the Empire, 1909. The Interchange of Teachers: Being a Short Account of the Aims and Work of the League of the Empire. London: General Committee of the League of the Empire, 1934. Minutes of Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations. London: League of the Empire, 1912. Report of the Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations convened by the League of the Empire. July 13th to 17th, 1912. London: League of the Empire, 1912. Report of the Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations Convened by the League of the Empire. [July 13–17, 1912]. Westminster: League of the Empire, 1912. Report of the Interchange of Teachers’ Scheme, 1907–23. London: League of the Empire, 1923. Report of the Special Education Conference. London: League of the Empire, 1926. b) records and miscellaneous “Emmie Baggallay Fund,” League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London. Guillet, Edwin, “‘One Queen, One Flag’: A Short History of the League of the British Commonwealth and Empire and Teacher Exchange.” Unpublished manuscript written for the Toronto branch of the league. Toronto, 1953. lect, file 1132. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers Headquarters, Clapham, London. “The Interchange of Teachers,” Report of the Board of Education 1925 / 26. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London. “Minutes of the Second meeting of the education council of the League of the Empire,” Winchester College, 3 June 1904. Annual General Meeting Book. From 19/6/1904 to 26/9/1970. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London. “Sir Philip Hutchins with himself and others, Appointment of Trustees of

Bibliography

309

the Imperial Education Trust and Declaration of the trusts thereof.” Indenture document, 24 May 1909. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London. Wilkinson, Alan, “Seventy-Five Years of Service.” (London, 1976) lect, File 18. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, Clapham, London. National Service League Papers a) meetings “Minutes and Secretary’s Reports of General Council Meetings of National Service League.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Minutes of Representative Council Meetings of the National Service League.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Minutes of the meeting of the Representative Council.” Mss Milner dep. 155 fols. 190–196. x.films 9 / 57. Lord Milner Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. National Service League, “Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1917.” Mss Milner dep. 156 / 24. Microfilm x.films 9 / 57. Lord Milner Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. National Service League, “Report and Balance Sheet for the Year ending 31st March 1918.” Sixteenth annual meeting. Mss Milner dep. 156 / 25. Microfilm x.films 9 / 57. Lord Milner Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. b) joint conferences with royal colonial institute and proposals for fusion “Memorandum on Amalgamation of the National Service League.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Report of the Sub-Committee appointed by the General Council on May 4, 1916 to consider terms of fusion of the National Service League and the Royal Colonial Institute.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the National Service League and Royal

310

Bibliography

Colonial Institute” [May 1916] Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Scheme for the Amalgamation of the Royal Colonial Institute and the National Service League under the title of ‘Imperial Union’ or as alternative ‘Royal Colonial Institute and National Service League’.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Scheme for the fusion of the Royal Colonial Institute and the National Service League under the title of the United Empire Society or the Imperial Union.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. c) joint conference with british workers’ national league “Report of the meeting of the joint conference of a sub-committee of the National Service League and the British Worker’ National League,” 23 August 1916. Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. d) general – undated “National Service League,” Royal Commonwealth Society Collections, Cambridge University. “Outline of a Scheme for National Training for National Training after the War,” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. e) general – dated “Draft of a proposal to strengthen the idea of national service in the future.” Undated memorandum enclosed with Wimbledon memorandum dated December 1916. Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Memorandum from Wimbledon Division of National Service League, December 1916.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Memorandum from meeting of the Executive of Glasgow branch of n.s.l.

Bibliography

311

on January 12, 1917.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Remittances from Branches of National Service League for quarters ending December 1913–15.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Unlabelled memorandum. Attached to letter of Macleod to Curzon, May 22, 1916.” Curzon Papers, Mss Eur F 112 / 168. India Office Private Papers, Department of Historical and Classical Studies, the British Library. “Vice Presidents and Members of the Council of the National Service League” with letter of 22 May 1916, “National Service League,” Royal Commonwealth Society Collections, Cambridge University. Victoria League Papers a) reports Report of Proceedings of the Imperial Health Conference held at the Imperial Institute, London. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League, Victoria League Annual Reports 1904–1914. London: Victoria League, 1905–1914. Victoria League, Victoria League Thirteenth Annual Report and Report of Special Work During the War 1914–15. London: Victoria League, 1915. Victoria League, Victoria League Annual Reports Including Reports of the Victoria League Soldiers Clubs 1915–19. London: Victoria League, 1916–19. Victoria League, Annual Reports 1920–31. London: Victoria League, 1921–31. b) victoria league minute books and records “Joint Committee with Victoria League and Other Bodies 1913–19,” Royal Commonwealth Society Collections, Cambridge University. Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship, Bayswater, London. – Victoria League Annual General Meetings (1903–50). – Book and Newspaper Sub-Committee Minutes. – Branches Committee Minutes (April 1918–March 1939). – Soldiers’ Club House Committee Minutes (June 1916–November 1916). – Special Hospitality Committee Minutes (1924–28). – Students from Malaya Committee (1928–42).

312

Bibliography

– Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (March 1913–June 1916). – Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (July 1916–November 1920). – Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (December 1920– April 1926). – Victoria League Executive Committee Minute Book (May 1926–May 1932). c) victoria league war pamphlets Victoria League Pamphlet No. 1. Sir Edward Cook, Why Britain is at War. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 2. J.H.L. Ridley, A Talk to the School Children of Britain: Why We Are Fighting. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 3. Frederic Harrison, The Meaning of War: For Labour – Freedom – Country. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 4. G.H. Hallam, The Nation’s Need. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 5. Sir Edward Cook, Britain and the Small Nations: Her Principles and Her Policy. London: Wyman & Sons Ltd., 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 6. W.J. Pincombe, Britain and Gallant Belgium. London: Wyman and Sons, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 7. Endure and Fight. London: Wyman and Sons, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 8. Big Steamers. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 9. M.E. Sadler, Modern Germany and the Modern World. London: Macmillan, 1915. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 10. E.B. and Marie Sargant, eds, The Country’s Call: A Short Selection of Patriotic Verse. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 11. George Macaulay Trevelyan, The Servians and Austria. London: Wyman and Sons Ltd., 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 12. E.W.M. Grigg, Why the Dominions Came In: The Power of Liberty and Law. London: Wyman and Sons, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 13. Mrs Clare Goslett, To Girls in Wartime. London: Victoria League, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 14. J.H.P. Ridley, Why Britain is Fighting. London: Wyman and Sons Ltd., 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 15. W.J. Pincombe, A Plain Talk to the People

Bibliography

313

of Britain: Britain Belgium and the Small Nations. London: Wyman and Sons Ltd., 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 16. Sir Edward Cook, How Britain Strove for Peace: A Record of Anglo-German Negotiations 1898–1914. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 17. Sir Donald MacKenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League War Pamphlet No. 18. Bhupendranath Basu, Why India is Heart and Soul with Great Britain. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 19. Sir Edward Cook, Britain and Turkey: The Causes of the Rupture. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 20. Harold Cox, The Economic Strength of Great Britain. London: Macmillan, 1914. Victoria League Pamphlet No 21. Rt. Hon. Lewis Harcourt, m.p. A Free Empire in Wartime: A Speech Delivered under the Auspices of the Victoria League. London: Victoria League, 1915. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 22. W. Crewdson, Japan Our Ally. With a Preface by the Rt. Hon. Sir Claude MacDonald. London: Macmillan, 1915. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 23. Sir Edward Cook, Britain’s Part in the War. London: Wyman & Sons Ltd, 1916. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 24. Dowager Countess of Jersey and Sir Edward Cook, eds, Britain’s Part in the War. Westminster: Victoria League, 1917. Victoria League Pamphlet No. 25. G.H. Hallam, ed., Hosts and Guests in War Time: Being an Account of Britain’s Organisation of friendliness and hospitality for Overseas Officers, Soldiers and Nurses during the Great War. London: Victoria League, 1919. d) victoria league publications The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions. A Handbook compiled by Miss Violet R. Markham together with a General View of the English Law and a Preface by Mrs. H.J. Tennant. [Issued by the Industrial SubCommittee of the Victoria League]. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1908. Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire No. 1. J.B. Condliffe, M.A. New Zealand. London: Victoria League, 1920. Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire No. 2. Hon. Crawford Vaughan, Australia. London: Victoria League, 1920. Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire No. 3. W.L. Grant, Canada.

314

Bibliography

London: Victoria League, 1920. Royal Commonwealth Society Collections, Cambridge University. Victoria League Pamphlets on the British Empire No. 4. W. Kupferburger, The Union of South Africa. London: Victoria League, 1924. Miscellaneous Imperial War Museum. Department of Printed Books. Wellington (House) Ephemeral Collection. First World War Propaganda Pamphlets. London House Papers. Goodenough College Archives, London. – File 1/1. “Pre-1937 Correspondence.” – File 1/3D “Mansion House Meeting: Sundry Letters.” – File 29/4 “Admission of students of non-european origin, 1945–1949 (with some 1930 papers).” Rhodes Trust Archives, Rhodes House, Oxford University. – rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire 1904–1924. Box 16 / 1. – rt 1079 (1) League of the Empire 1924–1949. Box 16 / 21. – rt 1203 Victoria League 1912–1924. Box 33 / 1. – rt 1203 Victoria League 1924–1937. Box 33 / 2. Royal Commonwealth Society Archives, Cambridge University. – “Lecture Committee Correspondence.” – “The Lectures Sub-Committee Minute Book 1914–1917.” Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women Papers. The Women’s Library, London Metropolitan University. – Australia and New Zealand Committee Minute Book, Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women papers, 1 / sos / 1 / 32. – sosbw Annual Reports 1920–1924. – Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women 1919–1962: Guide to Sources. – School Girls Oversea Tour Sub-Committee, 1930–34, Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women papers, 1 / sos / 1 / 33. – School Girls Oversea Tour Sub-Committee, 1934–38, Society for the Overseas Settlement of British Women papers, 1 / sos / 1 / 34. Contemporary Newspapers and Periodicals ‘The All-Red Mail’: Junior Section of the Federal Magazine Birmingham Post Daily Graphic Evening Mail

Bibliography

315

Evening News Evening Standard and St James Gazette The Federal Magazine The Federal Magazine and ‘The All-Red Mail’ Jewish Chronicle League of Empire Review and Federal Magazine. New Series (1922–26) League of the Empire Review, New Series. (1922–26) Morning Post The Observer Pall Mall Gazette Primrose League Gazette The Times The Victoria League Monthly Notes Parliamentary Records Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, Vol. 68. 5th Series, (1914–15). Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, Vol. 275 (1932–33); Vol. 283, (1933–34). Parliamentary Debates of the House of Lords, Vol. 18. 5th Series (1914–15). 5 George V. Government Reports and Publications Final Report on the Administration of the National Relief Fund to March 1st, 1921. (p.p. 1921, Cmd. 1272); Handbook for Women Who are Thinking of Settling Overseas. London: hmso, 1923. Report on the Administration of the National Relief Fund (p.p. 1917; c.d. 8449). Report of the Committee on War Charities (p.p. 1916; c.d. 8287). Report on the Home Office Department Committee on the Supervision of Charities. (p.p. 1927, Cmd. 823). Report on the Special Work of the Local Government Board arising out of the War. (p.p. 1915; c.d. 7763). Microfilm Collections “Women at Work Collection From the Imperial War Museum.” Co-ordinated by Agnes Conway. (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Microfilm, 1984–86).

316

Bibliography

Part Five, “Munitions, Prisoners, Relief Funds, Russia, Serbia, Suffrage and Politics, United States, Volunteer Corps, Welfare, wraf, wrns and Women’s Work Journals.” (Reels 72–91).

published materials Adams, R.J.Q. Arms and the Wizard: Lloyd George and the Ministry of Munitions, 1915–1916. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1978. – “Field Marshal Earl Roberts: Army and Empire.” In J.A. Thompson and Arthur Mejia, eds, Edwardian Conservatism: Five Studies in Adaptation. London and New York: Croom Helm, 1988, 41–76. – “The National Service League and Mandatory Service in Edwardian Britain.” Armed Forces and Society 12, no. 1 (Fall 1985): 53–74. – Adams, R.J.Q. and Philip Poirier. The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900–1918. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1987. Aldrich, Richard. “Imperialism in the Study and Teaching of History.” In J.A. Mangan, ed., ‘Benefits Bestowed’: Education and British Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988, 23–38. Alice, h.r.h. Princess. For My Grandchildren. London: Evans Brothers Ltd., 1966. Allen, Carleton Kemp. Forty Years of the Rhodes Scholarships. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944. Andrews, Lawrence. The Education Act, 1918. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976. Andrews, Maggie. The Acceptable Face of Feminism: The Women’s Institute as a Social Movement. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1997. Auchterlonie, Mitzi. Conservative Suffragists: The Women’s Vote and the Tory Party. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2007. Barker, J. Ellis. Economic Statesmanship: The Great Industrial and Financial Problems Arising from the War. London: John Murray, 1918. Barnes, G.N. From Workshop to War Cabinet. London: H. Jenkins, 1924. Barr, Niall. The Lion and the Poppy: British Veterans, Politics and Society, 1921–1939. London: Praeger, 2005. Barrett, John. Falling In: Australians and ‘Boy Conscription’ 1911–1915. Sydney: Hale & Ironmonger, 1979. Battine, Cecil. “Wanted: A Military Constitution.” Nineteenth Century 77, no. 458 (April 1915): 803–15. Beckett, Ian. “The British Army 1914–18: The Illusion of Change.” In John Turner, Britain and the First World War. London: Unwin Hyman, 1988, 99–116.

Bibliography

317

– A Nation in Arms: A Social History of the British Army in the First World War. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. Beddoe, Deirdre. Back to Home and Duty: Women Between the Wars, 1918–1939. London: Pandora, 1989. Bell, Christopher. The Story of the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers. London, 1976. Bell, Morag. “‘Citizenship not charity’: Violet Markham on Nature, Society and the State in Britain and South Africa.” In Morag Bell, ed., Geography and Imperialism 1820–1940. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995, 189–220. Bernstein, George L. Liberalism and Liberal Politics in Edwardian Britain. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986. – “Yorkshire Liberalism during the First World War.” The Historical Journal 32, no. 1 (March 1989): 107–29. Bingham, Adrian. “‘An Era of Domesticity’: Histories of Women and Gender in Interwar Britain.” Cultural and Social History 1 (2004): 225–33. Black, Lawrence. Redefining British Politics: Culture, Consumerism and Participation 1954–1970. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Blake, Henry A. “Compulsory Service as a Principle of the Constitution.” Nineteenth Century 78, no. 464 (October 1915): 808–13. Blake, Robert. “Baldwin and the Right.” In John Raymond, The Baldwin Age. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1960, 25–65. Blakeley, Brian. “The Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women and the Problems of Empire Settlement, 1917–1936. Albion 20, no. 3 (Fall 1988): 421–44. Bloomfield, Anne. “Drill and Dance as Symbols of Imperialism.” In J.A. Mangan, ed., Making Imperial Mentalities: Socialisation and British Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990, 74–95. Bourne, Kenneth. The Foreign Policy of Victorian England 1830–1902. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Brabazon, Reginald, 12th Earl of Meath. “Have we Lost the ‘Grit’ of our Forefathers?” Nineteenth Century 64 (July–December 1908): 421–29. Braybon, Gail. Women Workers in the First World War: The British Experience. London: Croom Helm, 1981. – and Penny Summerfield. Out of the Cage: Women’s Experience in Two World Wars. London and New York: Pandora, 1987. Bridgham, Fred, ed. The First World War as a Clash of Cultures. Rochester, ny: Camden House, 2006. Briggs, Asa and Anne Macartney. Toynbee Hall: The First Hundred Years. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.

318

Bibliography

Brittain, Vera. Testament of Youth. London: Virago Press, 1988 [rpt]. Brown, Kenneth. “The Anti-Socialist Union 1908–49.” In Kenneth Brown, ed. Essays in Anti-Labour History. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1974, 234–61. Brown, Robert Craig and Ramsay Cook. Canada 1896–1921: A Nation Transformed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974. Buitenhuis, Peter. The Great War of Words: British, American and Canadian Propaganda and Fiction, 1914–1933. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Burne, C.S. Might Gives Right. The New Gospel of Germany. Papers for the People, no. 2. London: Central Committee for Patriotic Organizations, 1914. – King George or Kaiser Wilhelm? British Freedom Against German Despotism. Papers for the People, no. 3. London: Central Committee for Patriotic Organizations, 1914. Burnett, John. A Social History of Housing 1815–1985. 2nd edition. London and New York: Methuen, 1986. Burton, Antoinette. Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women and Imperial Culture, 1865–1915. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Bush, Julia. Edwardian Ladies and Imperial Power. London: Leicester University Press, 2000. – “Edwardian Ladies and the ‘Race’ Dimensions of British Imperialism.” Women Studies International Forum 21, no. 3 (1998): 277–89. – “‘The Right Sort of Woman’: Female Emigrators and the Emigration to the British Empire, 1890–1910.” Women’s History Review 3, no. 3 (1994): 385–409. – Women Against the Vote: Female Anti-Suffragism in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Caedel, Martin. Pacifism in Britain, 1914–45: The Defining of a Faith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Cannadine, David. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. – G.M. Trevelyan: A Life in History. London: Harper Collins, 1992. Castle, Kathryn. Britannia’s Children: Reading Colonialism through Children’s Books and Magazines. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1996. Cheetham, Miss H.S. “Zabern – An Object Lesson in Real Militarism.” The Nation in Arms, ns, 8, no. 9 (Easter 1914): 537–40.

Bibliography

319

Childs, Michael J. Labour’s Apprentices: Working-Class Lads in Late Victorian and Edwardian England. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992. Chilton, Lisa. Agents of Empire: British Female Migration to Canada and Australia, 1860s-1930. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Clendinning, Anne. “Exhibiting a Nation: Canada at the British Empire Exhibition,” Histoire Sociale / Social History 39, no. 77 (2006): 79–107. Coetzee, Franz. For Party or For Country: Nationalism and the Dilemmas of Popular Conservatism in Edwardian England. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Cohen, Deborah. The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany, 1914–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Cole, G.D.H. A Short History of the British Working Class Movement 1789–1947. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1947. The Conscription of Riches. London: Workers’ National Committee, 1916. “The Conscription of Wealth.” New Statesman 6 (22 January 1916): 366–8. Constantine, Stephen, ed. Emigrants and Empire: British Settlement in the Dominions between the Wars. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990. Cook, Chris. A Short History of the Liberal Party 1900–92. 4th edition. London: Macmillan, 1993. Cook, Sir Edward. Delane of The Times. London: Constable and Co., 1915. – Edmund Garrett: a memoir. London: Edward Arnold, 1909. – “Eight Years of Liberal Imperialism.” Contemporary Review 105 (January 1914): 1–11. – The Life of Florence Nightingale. 2 volumes. London: Macmillan, 1913. – Literary Recreations. London: Macmillan, 1919. – More Literary Recreations. London: Macmillan, 1919. – The Press in War-Time. London: Macmillan, 1920. – Rights and Wrongs of the Transvaal War. London: Edward Arnold, 1901. Copelman, Dina. London’s Women Teachers: Gender, Class and Feminism 1870–1930. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Coulton, G.G. The Case for Compulsory Military Service. London: Macmillan, 1917. – Compulsory Military Service: Should the Working Class Support It? (A debate between C.G. Coulton and W. Paul). Glasgow: Socialist Labour Party, 1912. – A Strong Army in a Free State: A Study of the Old English and Modern Swiss Militias. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd, 1900.

320

Bibliography

– True Liberalism and Compulsory Military Service: An Appeal to the British Working Man. London: J. Miles and Co., 1914. – “The Volunteer Spirit.” Nineteenth Century 77, no. 455 (January 1915): 19–29. – Workers and War. Cambridge: Bowes and Sons, 1914. Cowper, Henry Erskine. “British Education, Public and Private and the British Empire, 1880–1930.” PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1979. Cross, Tony. St. Helena. London: David and Charles, 1980. Cullingford, Cedric. “My Country Right or Wrong? Nationalism and Cultural Values.” In Cedric Cullingford and Harald Hausemann, AngloGerman Attitudes. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995, 1–18. Curtis, S.J. Education in Britain since 1900. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1970 [rpt]. Curzon of Kedleston, Earl. Subjects of the Day. Desmond M. ChapmanHuston, ed. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1915. – War Poems and other Translations. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, 1915. Darwin, John. “Imperialism in Decline? Tendencies in British Imperial Policy Between the Wars.” The Historical Journal 23, no. 3 (September 1980): 657–79. – “A Third British Empire? The Dominion Idea in Imperial Politics.” In Judith M. Brown and Wm. Roger Louis, eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire – vol. IV – The Twentieth Century. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 64–87. Davidige, Mary. “The London Exchange Teachers’ Club – a History.” Commonwealth Times 5 (Summer 1994): 6–9. Davin, Anna. “Imperialism and Motherhood.” History Workshop Journal issue 5 (Spring 1978): 9–65. Dean, Dennis William. “The Contrasting Attitudes of the Conservative and Labour Parties to Problems of Empire 1922–1936.” PhD dissertation, University of London, 1974. De Groot, Gerard J. Blighty: British Society in the Era of the Great War. London and New York: Longmans, 1996. Dennis, Peter. Decision by Default: Peacetime Conscription and British Defence 1919–39. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972. Dewar, George A. B. “An Individualist’s Plea for Obligatory Service.” Nineteenth Century 77, no. 455 (January 1915): 13–18. Douglas, Roy. “Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War and the work

Bibliography

321

of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee.” Journal of Modern History 42, no. 4 (December 1970): 564–85. – “The National Democratic Party and the British Workers’ League.” The Historical Journal 15, no. 3 (September 1972): 533–62. Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Story of British Prisoners. London: Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, 1915. Drummond, Ian M. British Economic Policy and the Empire 1919–1939. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1972. Drummond, Commander J.H. “The Forces Umbrella.” Journal of the Royal United Services Institution 97, no. 587 (August 1952): 426–9. Duxbury, Neil. Frederick Pollock and the English Juristic Tradition. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Dwork, D. War is Good for Babies and Other Young Children: A History of the Infant and Child Welfare Movement in England, 1898–1919. London and New York: Tavistock, 1986. Dyhouse, Carole. “Working-Class Mothers and Infant Mortality in England 1895–1914.” Journal of Social History 12, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 248–67. Egerton, H.E. A Short History of British Colonial Policy. London: Methuen, 1897. Eksteins, Modris. The Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age. Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys, 1989. Embree, Ainslie T. 1857 in India: Mutiny or War of Independence? Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1963. Englander, David. “The National Union of Ex-Servicemen and the Labour Movement, 1918–1920,” History 76, no. 246 (1991): 24–42. English, Jim. “Empire Day in Britain, 1904–1958.” The Historical Journal 49, 1 (2006): 247–76. Farr, Barbara Storm. The Development and Impact of Right-Wing Politics in Britain, 1903–1932. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987. Favre, Colonel Camille. A Model for a National Militia. London: William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1904. Feldman, David. Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture 1840–1914. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Fforde, Matthew. Conservatism and Collectivism 1886–1914. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1990. Fitzpatrick, F.A. The First British Colonies. London: League of the Empire, 1904. Foster, R.F. Modern Ireland 1600–1972. London: Allen Lane, 1988. The Founding of Empire Day. Hamilton, Bermuda: The Bermuda Press Limited, 1930.

322

Bibliography

Francis, Martin. “The Domestication of the Male? Recent Research on Nineteenth and Twentieth Century British Masculinity.” The Historical Journal 45, 3 (2002): 637–52. Freeden, Michael. The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Friesen, Gerald. The Canadian Prairies: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Fuller, J.G. Troop Morale and Popular Culture in the British and Dominion Armies, 1914–1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Fussell, Paul. The Great War and Modern Memory. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Galbraith, V.H. “Albert Frederick Pollard 1869–1948.” Proceedings of the British Academy 35. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1949, 257–74. Gerard, Jessica. “Lady Bountiful: Women of the Landed Classes and Rural Philanthropy.” Victorian Studies 30, no. 2 (1987): 183–209. Gilbert, Bentley. British Social Policy 1914–39. London: B.T. Batsford, 1970. Gilbert, Martin S. Winston S. Churchill, vol. 5, 1922–1939. London: Heinemann, 1976. – The First World War. London: Stoddart, 1994. Gilmour, David. Curzon. London: John Murray, 1994. Glasier, J. Bruce. Militarism. London: Independent Labour Party, 1915. – The Peril of Conscription. Labour and War Pamphlets, Number Three. London: Independent Labour Party, 1915. Gollin, A.M. Proconsul in Politics: A Study of Lord Milner in Opposition and in Power. London: Anthony Blond, 1964. Goodman, Joyce and Sylvia Harrop, eds. Women, Educational Policy-Making and Administration in England: Authoritative Women since 1800. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Gordan, A.G. and J.J. Richardson. Government and Pressure Groups in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Gordon, Colin. By Gaslight in Winter: A Victorian Family History through the Magic Lantern. London: Elmtree Books, 1980. Gorman, Daniel. Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2006. Gothard, Janice. “‘The healthy, wholesome British domestic girl’: single female migration and the Empire Settlement Act, 1922–1930.” In Stephen Constantine, ed. Emigrants and Empire: British Settlement in the Dominions between the Wars. Manchester and London: Manchester University Press, 1990, 72–95.

Bibliography

323

Granatstein, J.L. “Conscription in the Great War.” In David Mackenzie, ed. Canada and the First World War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005, 62–75. – Yankee Go Home? Canadians and Anti-Americanism. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1996. Graves, Robert. Good-Bye to All That. London: Penguin Books, 1986 [rpt]. Grayson, Victor. Germany’s Last Chance. Searchlight Series, no. 16. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. Grayzel, Susan. Women and the First World War. London and New York: Longman, 2002. Gregory, Adrian. The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Greenlee, James. “‘A Succession of Seeleys’: The ‘Old School’ Re-Examined.” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 4, no. 3 (May 1976): 266–82. – “The ABCs of Imperial Unity.” Canadian Journal of History 14, no. 1 (April 1979): 49–64. – Education and Imperial Unity, 1901–1926. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1987. – Sir Robert Falconer: A Biography. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. Grieves, Keith. The Politics of Manpower 1914–16. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. Guillet, Edwin. In the Cause of Education: Centennial History of the Ontario Educational Association. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960. Gullace, Nicoletta. ‘The Blood of our Sons’: Men, Women and the Renegotiation of British Citizenship during the Great War. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. – “White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War,” Journal of British Studies 36, no. 2 (April 1997): 178–206. Gwynn, Stephen, ed. The Anvil of War: Letters Between F.S. Oliver and his Brother 1914–1918. London: Macmillan, 1936. Hale, William. “The Historical Background.” In William Hale and Ali Ihsan Bogis, eds. Four Centuries of Turco-British Relations: Studies in Diplomatic, Economic and Cultural Affairs. London: The Eothen Press, 1984, 1–9. Hall, Catherine and Sonya O. Rose, eds. At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. – “Introduction: being at Home with the Empire.” In Catherine Hall and

324

Bibliography

Sonya O. Rose, eds. At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 1–31. Hallam, G.H. Empire Calendar with Notes for the Year. Sidcup: B.W. Smith & Co., 1912. Hammerton, A. James. Emigrant Gentlewomen: Genteel Poverty and Female Emigration 1830–1914. London: Croom Helm, 1979. Hankin, Gerald T. The Story of the Empire. London: John Murray, 1911. Harley, J.H. “The Conscription of Wealth.” Contemporary Review 109 (May 1916): 594–602. Harris, Henry. The Irish Regiments in the First World War. Cork: The Mercier Press, 1968. Harris, Jose. Public Lives, Private Spirit: Britain 1870–1914. London: Penguin, 1993. Harrison, Brian. Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women’s Suffrage in Britain. London: Croom Helm, 1978. Harrison, Michael. “Thomas Coghlan Horsfall and the ‘example of Germany.’” Planning Perspectives 6, no. 3 (September 1991): 297–314. Harte, Negley. The University of London 1836–1986. London and Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: The Athlone Press, 1986. Hawke, Edward G. The British Empire and its History. London: John Murray, 1911. Hayes, Denis. Conscription Conflict: The Conflict of Ideas in the Struggle against Military Conscription in Britain between 1901 and 1939. London: Sheppard Press, 1949. Hazlehurst, Cameron. “The Conspiracy Myth.” In Martin Gilbert, ed. Lloyd George. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prenctice-Hall, 1968, 148–57. Hearnshaw, F.J.C. The Ancient Defence of England: The Nation in Arms. London: National Service League, 1915. – Conservatism in England. London: Macmillan, 1933. – Democracy and the British Empire. London: Constable and Company Ltd, 1920. – Democracy at the Crossways: A Study in Politics and History with Special Reference to Great Britain. London: Macmillan, 1918. – Freedom in Service: Six Essays on Matters concerning Britain’s Safety and Good Government. London: John Murray, 1916. – A Survey of Socialism: Analytical, Historical and Critical. London: Macmillan, 1928. Heathorn, Stephen. “The Civil Servant and Public Remembrance: Sir Lionel

Bibliography

325

Earle and the Shaping of London’s Commemorative Landscape, 1918–1933.” Twentieth Century British History 19, no. 3 (2008): 259–87. – “English Elementary Education and the Construction of National Identity.” PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 1996. – For Home, Country and Race: Constructing Gender, Class and Englishness in the Elementary School, 1880–1914. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2000. – “‘Let Us Remember that we too, are English’: The Construction of Citizenship and National Identity in English Elementary School Reading Books, 1880–1914.” Victorian Studies 38, no. 3 (Spring 1995): 395–427. – “A ‘matter for artists, and not for soldiers’? The Cultural Politics of the Earl Haig National Memorial, 1928–1937.” Journal of British Studies 44, no. 3 (2005): 536–61. Heathorn, Stephen J. and David Greenspoon. “Organizing Youth for Partisan Politics in Britain, 1918 – c. 1932.” The Historian 68, no. 1 (2006): 89–119. Heller, Joseph. British Policy Towards the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1914. London: Frank Cass, 1983. Hendley, Matthew. “The Conscription Movement in Great Britain 1899–1914.” ma thesis, McGill University, 1991. – “Constructing the Citizen: The Primrose League and the Definition of Citizenship in the Age of Mass Democracy in Britain, 1918–1928.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, ns, 7 (1996): 125–51. – “‘Help us to Secure, a Strong, Healthy, Prosperous and Peaceful Britain’: The Social Arguments of the Campaign for Compulsory Military Service in Britain 1899–1914.” Canadian Journal of History 30, no. 2 (August 1995): 261–88. – “Patriotic Leagues and the Evolution of Popular Patriotism and Imperialism in Great Britain 1914–32.” PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 1998. – “Women and the Nation: The Right and Projections of Feminized Political Images in Great Britain, 1900–1918.” In The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain. Julie Gottlieb and Thomas Linehan, eds. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004, 13–26. Heussler, Robert. British Rule in Malaya: The Malayan Civil Service and its Predecessor 1867–1942. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981. Hewlett, Geoffrey, ed. A History of Wembley. London: Brent Library Service, 1979.

326

Bibliography

Hilton, Mary and Pam Hirsch, eds. Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Progress 1790–1830. Harlow: Longman Pearson, 2000. Horn, Pamela. The Victorian and Edwardian Schoolchild. Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1989. Horne, John N. Labour at War: France and Britain 1914–1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Horsfall, Thomas Coghlan. National Service and the Welfare of the Community. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co Ltd, 1906. – The Uplifting of the Nation by Compulsory Military Training. Manchester: Charles H. Barber, 1915. Houghton, B. “Free Service or Conscription.” Contemporary Review 107 (May 1915): 610–17. Howe, Anthony. Free Trade and Liberal England 1846–1946. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Humphries, Stephen. Hooligans or Rebels? An Oral History of Working Class Childhood and Youth, 1889–1939. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981. Hutchins, P.P. An Indian Career 1858–1908. Preston: C.W. Whitehead, 1927. Hynes, Samuel. A War Imagined: The First World War and English Culture. London: The Bodley Head, 1991. – The Edwardian Turn of Mind Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1968. Jackel, Susan, ed. A Flannel Shirt and Liberty: British Emigrant Gentlewomen in the Canadian West, 1880–1914. Vancouver and London: University of British Columbia Press, 1982. James, David. Lord Roberts. London: Hollis and Carter, 1954. Jenks, Timothy. “Contesting the Hero: The Funeral of Admiral Lord Nelson.” Journal of British Studies 39, no. 4 (October 2000): 422–53. – Naval Engagements: Patriotism, Cultural Politics and the Royal Navy, 1793–1815. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Jersey, Dowager Countess of. Fifty-One Years of Victorian Life. London: John Murray, 1922. Johnson, Matthew. “The Liberal Party and the Navy League in Britain before the Great War.” Twentieth Century British History 22, no. 2 (2011): 137–63. Johnson, Robert. British Imperialism. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Johnstone, Tom. Orange, Green & Khaki. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. Jones, Helen, ed. Duty and Citizenship: The Correspondence and Political Papers of Violet Markham, 1896–1953. London: The Historians Press, 1994.

Bibliography

327

– “Violet Markham 1872–1959.” In Helen Jones, ed. Duty and Citizenship: The Correspondence and Political Papers of Violet Markham, 1896–1953. London: The Historians Press, 1994, 1–22. Jordan, Gerald. “The Politics of Conscription, 1905–16.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1974. Kendle, J.E. The Colonial and Imperial Conferences 1887–1911. London: Longmans, 1967. Kennedy, Dane. “Empire Migration in Post-War Reconstruction: The Role of the Oversea Settlement Committee, 1919–1922.” Albion 20, no. 3. (Fall 1988): 403–19. Kennedy, Paul. The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism. London: Allen and Unwin, 1980. Kent, Susan Kingsley. Making Peace: The Reconstruction of Gender in Interwar Britain. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1993. King, Alex. Memorials of the Great War in Britain: The Symbolism and Politics of Remembrance. New York and Oxford: Berg, 1998. Kinloch-Cooke, Clement. “The National Register and After.” Nineteenth Century 78, no. 464 (October 1915): 792–807. Kneeshaw, J.W. Conscription and Motherhood. Manchester: National Labour Press, 1916. – Conscription Enters the Workshops. Manchester: National Labour Press, 1917. – Conscription or Trade Unionism. Manchester: National Labour Press, 1915. Koss, Stephen. Lord Haldane: Scapegoat for Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Koven, Seth. Slumming: Social and Sexual Politics in Victorian London. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Kumar, Krishan. The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Lambert, Richard C. The Parliamentary History of Conscription. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917. League Scrapbook of Memorabilia 1901–1991. London: League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, 1991. Lebzelter, Gisela C. Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918–1939. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1978. – “Anti-Semitism – A Focal Point for the British Radical Right.” In Paul Kennedy and Anthony Nicholls, eds. Nationalist and Racialist Movements in Britain and Germany before 1914. London: Macmillan, 1981, 88–105. Lees, Lynn Hollen. “Being British in Malaya, 1890–1940.” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 1 (January 2009): 76–101.

328

Bibliography

Levine, Philippa, ed. Gender and Empire – Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Lewis, Jane. “Violet Markham, 1872–1959.” In Jane Lewis, Women and Social Action in Victorian and Edwardian England. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991, 262–301. – Women and Social Action in Victorian and Edwardian England. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991. “Liberalism and Compulsory Training.” The Nation in Arms VIII, no. 7 (Michaelmas 1913). Light, Alison. Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism between the Wars. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Lindsay, Deidre. “Labour against Conscription.” In David Fitzpatrick, ed. Ireland and the First World War. Gigginstown: The Lilliput Press and the Trinity History Workshop, 1988. Lloyd, Trevor. The British Empire 1558–1995. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Lucas, Sir Charles. “The South African Rebellion.” In Charles Lucas, The Empire at War, vol. IV, Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1924, 377–432. Lyons, F.S.L. Ireland since the Famine. London: Fontana, 1979. MacDonell, Amice. Historical Plays for Children, first series. London: George Allen & Sons, 1909. Published under the auspices of the League of the Empire. – Historical Plays for Children, second series. London: George Allen & Sons, 1910. Published under the auspices of the League of the Empire. MacIntyre, Clement James. “Responses to the Rise of Labour: Conservative Party Policy and Organisation 1922–1931.” PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 1986. MacIsaac, Pamela. “‘To Suffer and to Serve’: British Military Dependents, Patriotism and Gender in the Great War.” PhD dissertation, McMaster University, 1997. MacKenzie, John M., ed. Popular Imperialism and the Military, 1850–1950. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1992. – Propaganda and Empire: The Manipulation of British Public Opinion, 1880–1960. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1984. Mackie, Edward. “The Conscription Controversy and the end of Liberal Power in England 1905–16.” PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1966.

Bibliography

329

Malins, Geoffrey. How I Filmed the War. Nashville: Battery Press and Imperial War Museum, 1993 [rpt]. Mangan, J.A., ed. Benefits Bestowed?: Education and British Imperialism. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1988. – The Games Ethic and Imperialism: Aspects of the Diffusion of an Ideal. New York: Viking, 1985. – “‘The Grit of our Forefathers’: Invented Traditions, Propaganda and Imperialism.” In John M. MacKenzie, ed. Imperialism and Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986, 113–39. “Manifesto to the Trade Unionists of the Country. Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee.” 3 September 1914 in The British Labour Movement and the War. London: Harrison & Sons, 1915, 11–12. Markham, Violet. May Tennant: A Portrait. London: The Falcon Press, 1949. – Return Passage: The Autobiography of Violet R. Markham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953. – South Africa: Past and Present. London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1900. Marlowe, John. Milner – Apostle of Empire London: Hamish Hamilton, 1976. Marsh, Peter T. Joseph Chamberlain: Entrepreneur in Politics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Marwick, Arthur. The Deluge: British Society and the First World War. New York: W.W. Norton, 1970 [rpt]. – Women at War 1914–1918. London: Fontana, 1977. Matthews, Kay Morris. “‘Imagining Home’: Women Graduate Teachers Abroad, 1880–1930.” History of Education 32, no. 5 (September 2003): 529–45. Maude, F. N. “The Case for Volunteers,.” Nineteenth Century 77, no. 455 (January 1915): 1–12. McCall, Ciceley. Women’s Institutes. London: William Collins, 1943. McCarthy, Helen. “Parties, Voluntary Associations and Democratic Politics in Interwar Britain.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 891–912. – “Service Clubs, Citizenship and Equality: Gender Relations and MiddleClass Associations in Britain between the Wars.” Historical Research 81, no. 213 (August 2008): 531–52. McCord, Norman. The Anti-Corn Law League 1838–46. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958. McKibbin, Ross. Classes and Cultures: England 1918–1951. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. – “Why Was There no Marxism in Great Britain?” In Ross McKibbin, ed.

330

Bibliography

The Ideologies of Class: Social Relations in Britain 1880–1950. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 1–41. Meakin, Annette M.B. Enlistment or Conscription?. London: George Routledge and Sons Limited, 1915. Meath, 12th Earl. Brabazon Potpourri. London: Hutchinson, 1928. – Memories of the Twentieth Century. London: John Murray, 1924. Meredith, David. “Imperial Images: The Empire Marketing Board, 1926–32.” History Today 37 (January 1987). “Message from Field Marshal Earl Roberts, v.c. o.m. to the Children of the Empire.” League of the Empire, 1914. Messinger, Gary S. British Propaganda and the State in the First World War. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1992. Middlemas, Keith. Politics in Industrial Society: The Experience of the British System Since 1911. London: Andre Deutsch, 1979. Midgley, Clare, ed. Gender and Imperialism. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1998. Miller, Henry, ed. Royal Commonwealth Society, 1868–1968: Royal Commonwealth Society Centenary Souvenir. London, 1968. Millman, Brock. Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain. London: Frank Cass, 2000. Mills, Elliott E., ed. Speeches of Field Marshal Lord Roberts on Imperial Defence. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co, 1906. Mills, J. Saxon. Sir Edward Cook, K.B.E.: A Biography. London: Constable and Co., 1921. Milner, Lord. England in Egypt. London: Edward Arnold, 1892. Milward, Alan S. The Economic Effects of the Two World Wars on Britain. 2nd edition. London: Macmillan, 1984. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. Theories of Imperialism. P.S. Falla, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Moorman, Mary. George Macaulay Trevelyan: A Memoir. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1980. Morgan, Cecilia. ‘A Happy Holiday’: English Canadians and Transatlantic Tourism, 1870–1930. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Morris, A.J.A. The Scaremongers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984. Morton, Desmond. When Your Number’s Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War. Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1993. Mosley, Leonard. Curzon: The End of an Epoch. London: Longmans, 1960.

Bibliography

331

Mosse, George L. Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Musgrave, P.W. Society and Education in England Since 1800. London: Methuen and Co Ltd, 1968. National Service League, The Causes of the Great War. (Revised to September 21, 1914). London: Gee and Co Ltd, 1914. – Occasional Notes. September 1915. Newton, A.P. “The Imperial Education Conference – An Impression.” United Empire 18, no. 8 (August 1927): 443–5. Nicholas, Sîan. “The Construction of a National Identity: Stanley Baldwin, ‘Englishness’ and the Mass Media in Interwar Britain.” In Martin Francis and Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska, eds. The Conservatives and British Society, 1880–1990, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996, 127–46. Nicholson, Harold. Curzon: The Last Phase 1919–1925. A Study in Post-War Diplomacy. London: Constable, 1934. Nicholson, Virginia. Singled Out: How Two Million British Women Survived without Men After the First World War. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Nish, Ian H. Alliance in Decline: A Study in Anglo-Japanese Relations, 1908–23. London: The Athlone Press, 1972. Oddie, G. “Some British Attitudes towards Reform and Repression in India, 1917–1920.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 19, no. 2 (1973): 224–40. Ogg, David. Herbert Fisher, 1865–1940: A Short Biography. London: Edward Arnold & Co, 1947. Ogilvie, F.W. The Tourist Movement: An Economic Study. London: P.S. King and Son Ltd, 1933. Oliver, Frederick Scott. Ordeal by Battle. New York: Macmillan, 1916. Oram, Alison. “Inequalities in the Teaching Profession: The Effect on Teachers and Pupils, 1910–1939.” In Felicity Hunt, ed. The Schooling of Girls and Women, 1850–1950. London: Basil Blackwell, 1987, 101–23. Osborne, John Morton. The Voluntary Recruiting Movement in Britain 1914–1916. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1982. Palmer, Howard. Patterns of Prejudice. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1982. Panayi, Panikos. The Enemy In Our Midst: Germans in Britain during the First World War. New York: Berg, 1991. Partington, Geoffrey. Women Teachers in the Twentieth Century in England and Wales. Windsor: nfer Publishing Company, 1976.

332

Bibliography

Pedersen, Susan. Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. – “The Future of Feminist History.” Perspectives (October 2000). – “What is Political History Now?” In David Cannadine, ed. What is History Now? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, 36–56. Pelling, Henry. The Social Geography of British Elections 1885–1910. London: Macmillan, 1967. Pepper, Peter. A Place to Remember: The History of London House, William Goodenough House and The Burn. London: Ernest Benn, 1972. Phillips, Gregory. The Diehards: Aristocratic Society and Politics in Edwardian England. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Pickering, Paul A. and Alex Tyrrell, The People’s Bread: A History of the AntiCorn Law League. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 2000. Pickles, Katie. “A Link in ‘The Great Chain of Empire Friendship’: The Victoria League in New Zealand.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 33, no. 1 (January 2005): 29–50. – Female Imperialism and National Identity: Imperial Order of the Daughters of Empire. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002. Playne, Caroline. The Pre-War Mind in Britain. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928. Pollard, A.F., ed. The British Empire: Its Past, Its Present, and its Future. London: The League of the Empire, 1909. – The Commonwealth at War. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917. – “History and Science: A Rejoinder.” History I (1916–1917): 38. – The League of Nations in History. London: Oxford University Press, 1918. – The War: Its History and its Morals. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1915. Pollard, Michael. “Sunset or Dawn?: F.S. Oliver’s Endless Adventure in History and Politics, 1921–1934.” History 90, no. 299 (2005): 387–410. Pollock, Sir Frederick. German ‘Truth’ and European Facts about the War. London: The Central Committee for National Patriotic Organisations, 1915. – “The League of the Empire.” United Empire: Royal Colonial Institute Journal 6, no. 10 (October 1915) ns: 736–41. – The League of Nations and the Coming Rule of Law. London: Oxford University Press, 1918. Ponsonby, Arthur. Falsehood in War-Time: Containing an Assortment of Lies

Bibliography

333

Circulated Throughout the Nations during the Great War. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928. Porter, Bernard. The Absent Minded Imperialists: Empire, Society and Culture in Britain. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Potton, Edward. “Sir Frederick Pollock.” Law Quarterly Review 210 (April 1937): 199–203. Powell, Violet. Margaret, Countess of Jersey: A Biography. London: Heinemann, 1978. Price, T.W. The Story of the Workers’ Educational Association from 1903 to 1924. London: Labour Publishing Company, 1924. Prochaska, F.K. Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. – Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995. Procida, Mary. Married to the Empire: Gender, Politics and Imperialism in India, 1883–1947. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002. Prothero, G.W. How Goes the War? an Estimate of the Present Situation and the Need for Further Effort. London: Central Committee for National Patriotic Organisations, 1915. Pugh, Martin. “Domestic Politics.” In Stephen Constantine, Maurice Kirby, Mary Rose, eds. The First World War in British History. London: Edward Arnold, 1995, 9–28. – Electoral Reform in War and Peace 1906–1918. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. – Hurray for the Blackshirts!’: Fascists and Fascism in Britain between the Wars. London: Pimlico, 2005. – The Tories and the People 1880–1935. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. Ramsden, John. An Appetite for Power: A History of the Conservative Party since 1830. London: HarperCollins, 1999. Raymond, John. The Baldwin Age. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1960. Reese, Trevor. The History of the Royal Commonwealth Society 1868–1968. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. Reid, Alastair. “Dilution, trade unionism and the State in Britain during the First World War.” In Steven Tolliday and Jonathan Zeitlin, Shop Floor Bargaining and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, 46–74. Reminiscences of 60 Years of Exchange 1930–1990. New South Wales Branch, League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, 1990.

334

Bibliography

Report of the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organisations. [n.d.] Reynolds, J.P. “Thomas Coghlan Horsfall and the town planning movement in England.” Town Planning Review 23 (1952–53): 52–60. Rhodes Scholarships: Records of Past Scholars Elected Between the Years 1903 and 1927. University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931. Rich, Paul. “Elite and Popular Culture: ‘Patriotism and the Intellectuals’ c. 1886–1945.” History of European Ideas 11 (1989): 449–66. Richardson, Malcolm. “Education and Politics: The London Labour Party and Schooling between the Wars.” In Andrew Saint, ed. Politics and the People of London: The London County Council 1889–1965. London: The Hambledon Press, 1989, 147–65. Riedi, Eliza. “Brains or Polo? Equestrian Sport, Army Reform and the Gentlemanly Officer Tradition, 1900–1914.” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 84 (2006): 250–3. – “Imperialist Women in Edwardian Britain: the Victoria League, 1899–1914.” University of St. Andrews PhD dissertation, 1998. – “Options for an Imperialist Woman: The Case of Violet Markham, 1899–1914.” Albion 32, no. 1 (2000): 59–84. – “Women, Gender and the Promotion of Empire: The Victoria League, 1901–1914. The Historical Journal 45, no. 3 (September 2002): 569–99. Roberts, A. Carson. “True National Service.” Nineteenth Century 78, no. 465 (November 1915): 985–96. Roberts, Field Marshal Earl. A Nation in Arms. London: John Murray, 1907. – Lord Roberts’s Message to the Nation. London: John Murray, 1912. – Lord Roberts’s Campaign Speeches. London: John Murray, 1913. – The Supreme Duty of the Citizen at the Present Crisis. Montreal: Foster Brown Co. Limited, 1914. Robertson, The Rt Hon John M. The Pacifist Blind Spot. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. Robertson, Field Marshal Sir William. From Private to Field Marshal. London: Constable, 1921. Rodner, William S. “Leaguers, Covenanters, Moderates: British support for Ulster, 1913–1914. Eire-Ireland 17, no. 13 (1982): 68–85. Roe, Michael. “‘We can die just as easy out here’: Australia and British migration, 1916–1939.” In Constantine, ed. Emigrants and Empire: British Settlement in the Dominions between the Wars, 96–120. Rohman, Gerd. “Images of Germany in 20th Century English Literature.” In

Bibliography

335

Harald Hausemann, ed. As Others See Us: Anglo-German Perceptions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994, 47–68. Roland [John Mackinnon Robertson]. The Future of Militarism. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1916. Ronaldshay, The Rt Hon. Earl. The Life of Lord Curzon. 3 vols. London: Ernest Benn Ltd, 1928. Roscoe, The Rev. J.E. Conscription in the Bible. London: St. Catherine’s Press, 1915. Rose, Kenneth. Curzon: A Most Superior Person. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Rose, Sonya. Which People’s War?: National Identity and Citizenship in Wartime Britain, 1939–1945. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ross, Ellen. “Labour and Love: Rediscovering London’s Working-Class Mothers, 1870–1918.” In Jane Lewis, Labour and Love: Women’s Experience of Home and Family 1850–1940. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985, 73–96. Rotberg, Robert I. The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Rubin, Gerry. War, Law and Labour: The Munitions Acts, State Regulation and the Unions, 1915–1921. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Sanders, M.L. and Philip M. Taylor. British Propaganda during the First World War, 1914–1918. London: Macmillan, 1982. Sanders, W.S. Is the Capitalist to Blame? Searchlight Series, no. 4. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. – Under the Kaiser’s Rule. Searchlight Series, no. 2. National War Aims Committee. London: W.H. Smith and Sons, 1918. Sargant, E.B. “The Victoria League.” United Empire 6, ns (1915): 588–94. Sargent, J. South Africa: Seven Lectures Prepared for the Visual Instruction Committee of the Colonial Office. [Visual Instruction Committee Handbooks, No. 5]. London: George Philip & Son Ltd, 1914. Scally, Robert. The Origins of the Lloyd George Coalition: The Politics of Social Imperialism 1900–18. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Scott, Joan Wallach. Gender and the Politics of History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Scott, J.W. Robertson. The Life and Death of a Newspaper [an Account of the Temperaments, Perturbations and Achievements of John Morley, W.T. Stead, E.T. Cook, Harry Cust, J.L. Garvin and three other editors of the Pall Mall Gazette]. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1952.

336

Bibliography

Searle, G.R. The Liberal Party: Triumph and Disintegration 1886–1929. London: Macmillan, 1992. – The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Thought, 1899–1914. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971. Seddon, James Andrew. Why British Labor Supports the War. New York: National Security League, 1918. Patriotism through Education Series, no. 22. Seecharan, Clem. Muscular Learning: Cricket and Education in the Making of the British West Indies at the end of the 19th Century. Kingston and Miami: Ian Randle, 2006. Selleck, R.J. English Primary Education and the Progressives 1914–1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972. Semmel, Bernard. Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperialist Thought, 1895–1914. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1960. Sen, Snigdha. The Historiography of the Indian Revolt of 1857. Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak, 1992. Sharpe, Andrew. “The Indianisation of the Indian Army.” History Today 26 (March 1986): 47–52. Shee, George F. The Briton’s First Duty. London: Grant Richards, 1901. Sherington, G.E. “The 1918 Education Act: Origins, Aims and Development” British Journal of Educational Studies 24, no. 1 (February 1976): 66–85. – English Education, Social Change and War, 1911–1920. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1981. Simkins, Peter. Kitchener’s Army: The Raising of the New Armies, 1914–16. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. Simon, Brian. Education and the Labour Movement 1870–1920. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1965. Sinha, Mrinalini. Colonial Masculinity: The ‘manly Englishman’ and the ‘effeminate Bengali’ in the late Nineteenth Century. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995. Sinnema, Peter. “Anxiously Managing Mourning: Wellington’s Funeral and the Press.” Victorian Review 25, no. 2 (Winter 2000): 30–60. Skrine, Francis Henry Bennett. Wanted!: A Citizen Army and Navy. London: Longmans and Green, 1914. Smith, Adele. The Royal Overseas League: From Empire into Commonwealth, A History of the First 100 Years. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010.

Bibliography

337

A Socialist. Our Real War Aim. Searchlight Series, no. 15. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. A Socialist Talks it Over. Searchlight Series, no. 5. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. Ex. 965. Soldon, N. “Laissez Faire as Dogma: The Liberty and Property Defence League 1882–1914.” In Kenneth Brown, ed. Essays in Anti-Labour History. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1974, 208–33. Souvenir of Imperial Patriotic Meeting. Held on May 19th 1915 at Guildhall in the City of London. London: Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, 1915. Springhall, J.O. Empire, Youth and Society: British Youth Movements, 1883–1940. London: Croom Helm, 1977. – “Lord Meath, Youth and Empire.” Journal of Contemporary History 5, no. 4 (1970): 97–111. Stacey, C.P. Canada in the Age of Conflict: A History of Canadian External Relations. vol. 1, 1867–1921. Toronto: Macmillan, 1977. Stearn, Roger T. “‘The Last Glorious Campaign’: Lord Roberts, the National Service League and Compulsory Military Training, 1902–1914.” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 87 (2009): 312–30. Steele, E.D. “Palmerston’s Foreign Policy and Foreign Secretaries, 1855–1865.” In Keith M. Wilson, Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Policy: From the Crimean War to the First World War. London: Croom Helm, 1987, 25–84. Stephen, Daniel Mark. “ ‘The White Man’s Grave’: British West Africa and the British Empire Exhibition of 1924–1925.” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 1 (January 2009): 102–28. Stitt, James W. “The Role of the Whitley Councils in British Labour Relations, 1917–1939.” Essays in Economic and Business History 8 (1990): 343–54. Stocks, Mary. The Workers’ Educational Association: The First Fifty Years. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1953. The Story of the League 1901–1991. London: League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, 1991. Streets, Heather. Martial Races: The Military, Race and Masculinity in British Imperial Culture, 1857–1914. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2004. – “Military Influence in Late Victorian and Edwardian Popular Media: The Case of Frederick Roberts.” Journal of Victorian Culture 8, no. 2 (2000): 231–56.

338

Bibliography

Stride, The Rev. W.K. Empire Builders: A Course of Lectures. Introduction by H.E. Egerton. London: John Murray, 1906. Published under the auspices of the League of the Empire. Stubbs, John O. “The Conservative Party and the Politics of War 1914–1916.” DPhil dissertation, Oxford University, 1973. – “The Impact of the Great War on the Conservative Party.” In Gillian Peele and Chris Cook, eds. The Politics of Reappraisal 1918–1939. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975, 14–38. – “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour.” English Historical Review 87, no. 345 (October 1972): 717–54. Summary of work accomplished by the League of the Empire 1901–1918. London: League of the Empire, 1918. Summers, Anne. “The Character of Edwardian Nationalism: Three Popular Leagues.” In Paul Kennedy and Anthony Nicholls, eds. Nationalist and Racialist Movements in Britain and Germany before 1914. London: Macmillan, 1981, 68–97. – “Militarism in Britain before the Great War. History Workshop Journal no. 2 (Autumn 1976): 104–23. Sundaram, Chandar S. “‘Martial’ Indian Aristocrats and the Military System of the Raj: The Imperial Cadet Corps, 1900–14.” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 25, no. 3 (1997): 415–39. – “Reviving a ‘Dead Letter’: Military Indianization and the Ideology of Anglo-India, 1885–91.” In Partha Sarathi Gupta and Anirudh Deshpande, eds. The British Raj and its Indian Armed Forces, 1857–1939. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002, 45–97. Swartz, Marvin. The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics during the First World War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Talbot, Meriel. “Practical Imperialism: The Work of the Victoria League Health Conference.” Britannic Review 1 (3) (July 1914): 351–6. Tanner, Thomas W. Compulsory Citizen Soldiers. Waterloo, n.s.w.: Alternative Publishing Co-Operative Limited, 1980. Taylor, A.J.P. Politics in the First World War. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. Taylor, Miles. “John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion in England, c. 1712–1929.” Past and Present 134 (February 1992): 93–128. Temperley, Harold. “The Historical Ideas of J.B. Bury.” In Selected Essays of J.B. Bury. Harold Temperley, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930, xv–xxxii.

Bibliography

339

Temple, The Rev. William. Christianity and Social Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1942. Thompson, Andrew. The Empire Strikes Back?: The Impact of Imperialism on Britain from the mid-Nineteenth Century. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005. – “The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire: Imperial Discourse on British Politics, 1895–1914.” Journal of British Studies 36, no. 2 (April 1997): 147–77. Thompson, Dorothy. Queen Victoria: The Woman, the Monarchy and the People. New York: Pantheon Books, 1990. Thompson, Lawrence. The Enthusiasts: A Biography of John and Katherine Bruce Glasier. London: Gollancz, 1971. Thompson, Paul. The Edwardians: The Remaking of British Society. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Tillett, Ben. My Message to Labour. Searchlight Series, no. 7. London: National War Aims Committee, 1918. Todman, Daniel. “‘Sans peur et sans reproche’: The Retirement, Death and Mourning of Sir Douglas Haig, 1918–1928.” The Journal of Military History 67, no. 4 (October 2003): 1083–106. Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005. Travers, Tim. The Killing Ground: The British Army, the Western Front and the Emergence of Modern Warfare. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987. Trentmann, Frank. Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption and Civil Society in Modern Britain. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Trofimenkoff, Susan Mann. “Quebec and the Great War” in J.M. Bumsted, ed. Interpreting Canada’s Past. Volume Two: Post Confederation. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993. Tropp, Asher. The School Teachers: The Growth of the Teaching Profession in England and Wales from 1800 to the Present Day. London: Heinemann, 1959. Turner, John. “The British Commonwealth Union and the General Election of 1918.” English Historical Review 93, no. 368 (July 1978): 528–59. – British Politics and the Great War: Coalition and Conflict, 1915–1918. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Tylee, Claire M. The Great War and Women’s Consciousness: Images of Militarism and Womanhood in Women’s Writings, 1914–64. London: Macmillan, 1990.

340

Bibliography

The Victoria League. “Settler’s Welcome Committee.” London, 1913. “Visit of British Headmistresses of Girls’ Schools,” Echoes, no. 123 (June 1931): 25. Vogeler, Martha S. Frederic Harrison: The Vocations of a Positivist. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Wade, Mason. The French Canadians: 1760–1967. Toronto: Macmillan, 1968. Waites, Bernard. A Class Society at War, England 1914–1918. Leamington Spa: Berg, 1987. Walthem, Kenneth. “The British Empire Exhibition of 1924.” History Today 31 (August 1981): 34–9. Walvin, James. A Child’s World: A Social History of English Childhood, 1800–1914. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984 [rpt]. Ward, Paul. Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, patriotism and the British Left, 1881–1924. Woodbridge and Rochester, ny: The Royal Historical Society – The Boydell Press, 1998. Wardle, David. English Popular Education 1780–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Weber, Thomas. Our Friend ‘The Enemy’: Elite Education in Britain and Germany before the First World War. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. Weiler, Peter. The New Liberalism: Liberal Social Theory in Great Britain 1889–1914. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc, 1982. Wesley’s Day and Empire Day: Illustrated Programme and Souvenir of the AllMethodist London Celebrations. London: The Epworth Press, 1924. “What is the Duty and Discipline Movement? – a Campaign against Slackness and Indiscipline.” In the Earl of Meath, ed. The Soldier’s Pocket Companion. With a special message from h.r.h. The Princess Royal. [Published for the Church Army]. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1915. Whitehouse, Patrick and David St John Thomas. lms 150: The London Midland and Scottish Railway – A Century and a Half of Progress. Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1987. Wilson, Trevor. The Downfall of the Liberal Party 1914–1935. London: St James Place, 1966. – The Myriad Faces of War: Britain and the Great War 1914–1918. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986. Winter, J.M. “Britain’s ‘Lost Generation’ of the First World War.” Population Studies 31, no. 3 (November 1977): 449–66. – The Great War and the British People. London: Macmillan, 1987. – Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European and Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

341

– Socialism and the Challenge of War: Ideas and Politics in Britain 1912–1918. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. Wohl, Anthony. The Eternal Slum: Housing and Social Policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold, 1977. Woollacott, Angela. Gender and Empire. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. – “‘Khaki Fever’ and its Control: Gender, Class, Age and Sexual Morality on the British Home Front in the First World War.” Journal of Contemporary History 29, no. 2 (April 1994): 325–48. – On Her their Lives Depend: Munitions Workers and the Great War. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994. – To Try Her Fortune in London: Australian Women, Colonialism and Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Wootton, Graham. The Official History of the British Legion. London: MacDonald and Evans, 1956. – Pressure Groups in Britain 1720–1970. London: Allen Lane, 1975. Wright, Patrick. On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain. London and New York: Verso, 1985. Yong, C.F. and R.B. McKenna. The Kuomintang Movement in British Malaya 1912–1949. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1990. Ziegler, Philip. Legacy: Cecil Rhodes, the Rhodes Trust and Rhodes Scholarships. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008.

reference guides Australian Dictionary of Biography. Vol. 12: 1891–1939. John Ritchie, ed. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1990. Banks, Olive. The Biographical Dictionary of British Feminists. Vol. 1: 1800–1930. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1985. British Biographical Archive. Series 1 and 2. London: K.G. Saur, 1984. Butler, David and Gareth. British Political Facts 1900–1994. 7th ed. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994. Dictionary of Labour Biography. Vol. 2. Joyce M. Bellamy and John Saville, eds. London: Macmillan, 1974. Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937–1971. Dictionary of South African Biography. Vol. 3. D.W. Kruger, ed. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1977. Dod’s Parliamentary Companion 1921–1925. London: Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1921–25.

342

Bibliography

‘G.E.C.’ The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords from the Earliest Times. Vol. 13. Peers Created 1901 to 1938. London: St. Catherine Press Ltd, 1940. Halsey, A.H. British Social Trends since 1900. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Townend, Peter, ed. Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage: Baronetage and Knightage. London: Burke’s Peerage Limited, 1970. 105th edition. Weir, Alison. Britain’s Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy. London: The Bodley Head, 1989. Who was Who. Vols. 1–8. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1920–91.

Index

Abbreviations have been used for the names of the three principal organizations: League of the Empire (le); National Service League (nsl); Victoria League (vl). Adams, R.J.Q., 15 Adult School Union, 148 Alexander, A.V., 179 Alice, Princess, Countess of Athlone, 176 Allardyce, Lady, 217 Allen, Bernard, 189 Allen, Sir James, 284n37 Allendale, Lady, 180, 283n30 Allendale, Lord, 283n30 ‘All-Red Mail, The.’ See under League of the Empire: publications Amery, Leo: and nsl, 23, 31, 247n224; and vl, 179, 195, 213, 218, 283n24 Ampthill, Lady, 100, 257n148 Anderson, D.E., 53 Anti-German League, 58 Anti-Socialist Union, 246n213, 254n101 Asquith, Herbert Henry: coalition government, 22, 23, 31, 33, 47,

169; and conscription legislation, 11, 38, 42; and Cook, 153 associational culture, 5–6; differences in, 76; post-war, 9, 57, 67, 116, 160, 174; wartime, 107 Australia: British women settlers, 216–18, 300n244; education system, 111–12, 122, 192; Forster’s career in, 175; Holman’s career in, 261n205; imperialist portrayals of, 92, 205, 221; Labour government in, 34, 49, 54, 205, 217, 261n205; military training in, 34, 53–4, 205, 239n112; soldiers in First World War, 134, 140, 168; teacher exchanges, 188, 192; vl members in, 193 Baldwin, Stanley, 225 Balfour, Arthur, 70, 121, 122, 193 Balfour, Betty, 122, 129 Barker, J. Ellis, 65

344

Index

Basu, Bhupendranath, 277n217; Why India Is Heart and Soul with Great Britain, 156–7 Bathurst, Countess, 100 Bayley, Sir Charles, 175 Beaverbrook, Lord, 164 Belgium and Belgian relief, 40, 153–4, 168, 242n161 Beloe, R.D., 101 Bennett, Arnold, 152 Beresford, Lord Charles, 7, 31 Birchenough, Henry, 31 Bismarck, Otto von, 27, 107, 159 Black, Lawrence, 5 Blake, William: “Jerusalem,” 131, 268n90 Blatchford, Robert, 34 Bloomfield, Anne, 83, 252n80 Boer War, 138, 167, 206–7; Milner’s role in, 118, 120; Roberts’s role in, 15 Borden, Robert, 133 Bottomley, Horatio, 142, 273n150 Boys’ Brigade, 83, 243n175 Boy Scouts, 63, 83, 109, 243n175 Boys’ Home Industrial School Brigade, 83 Boys’ Life Brigade, 83 Brand, Robert, 169 British Brothers League, 7 British Commonwealth League, 180 British Commonwealth Union, 49, 55 British East Africa, 209 British Empire Exhibition (1924, 1925), 194, 198, 200 British Federation for the Emancipation of Women, 257n150 British Legion, 55, 57

British Malaya, 186; hospitality for students from, 195–8 British West Africa, 209 British Workers’ National League (bwnl), 51–6, 244n189, 245n198 Burne, C.S., 276n198 Bury, John Bagnell, 69, 74, 86, 249n37 Bush, Julia, 127, 197, 215 Cammaerts, Emile, 242n161 Canada: American publications in, 149, 210; autonomy for, 169, 206; British immigrants in, 297n197; British publications in, 149, 151, 209; and Empire Day, 25; English/French issues, 206, 243n170; Hands Across the Sea (later Overseas Education League), 80, 186, 187, 194, 252n69; Imperial Education Conference (Toronto), 82, 200; imperialist portrayals of, 92, 167–8, 206; Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire, 209; le branches in, 105; Naval Service Bill, 243n170; Ottawa Agreements (1932), 3, 225; schools and education, 202; soldiers in First World War, 134, 146, 167–8, 271n137, 274n169; teacher exchanges, 188, 189; vl profile of, 221 capitalism, 88 Casement, Roger, 101, 167 Castle, Kathryn, 92 Causes of the Great War, The (pamphlet), 14, 27 Cavendish Association, 13, 40 Cecil, Lord Robert, Viscount Chelswood, 130, 267n86

Index

Cecil, Violet (Lady Edward Cecil, later wife of Lord Milner), 14, 197 Central Committee for National Patriotic Organizations, 124, 142, 152, 265n44 Central Committee on Women’s Training and Employment, 119 Chamberlain, Beatrice, 84, 253n87 Chamberlain, Joseph: and imperial federation, 280n270; and Lady Jersey, 118; and le correspondence project, 78; and tariff reform, 91, 127, 253n87 Chamberlain, Neville, 31, 35, 66, 179 children: and Empire Day celebrations, 83, 252n80; le projects for, 77–85, 100–1, 105–6; patriotic or imperialist publications for, 13, 20–1, 86–94, 153–4, 165, 207; as propaganda vehicles, 153; vl lectures for, 144; in working-class families, 109–10, 129–30 Chilton, Lisa, 215, 217 China, 197 Church Army, 132 Church Lads’ Brigade, 83 Citizen Defence League, 247n224 citizenship: imperial, 215; link with education, 72, 87, 89–90 class issues: aristocrats in patriotic organizations, 63, 77, 103, 117, 119; with child care and child labour, 129–30; class unity and “fellowship of the trenches,” 163–4; in education, 108–10, 112, 202–3; and social imperialism, 127–8. See also working class collectivism, 88

345

Comité international des anciens combattants, 57 Commonwealth Day, 220 compulsory military training and service. See conscription Comrades of the Great War, 57 Comte, Auguste, 158 Condliffe, J.B.: New Zealand, 204 Connaught, Duke of, 134 conscription (compulsory military training and/or service): in Australia, 34, 53–4, 205, 239n112; in Canada, 168; compatibility with democracy, 25, 30, 34, 49; compatibility with liberty, 238n88; in continental Europe, 13, 25, 30; Irish issues with, 42, 47; Labour opposition to, 34–7, 49, 50–1, 163; National Service Acts (1916), 11, 37, 41–2; nsl/bwnl scheme for military training, 52–4; nsl propaganda campaign for, 32–3, 39–40; in peacetime, 53, 56, 66; pro-German arguments for, 29; publications on, 26–30, 32–3, 36–7, 41–2, 92; public opposition to, 33–5; training vs service, 7, 237–8n85. See also First World War Conservative Party: in Asquith coalition government, 33, 38; and conscription, 41; in interwar period, 5, 66, 173, 181; and Primrose League, 7, 219; and vl, 179–80, 219 Cook, Sir Edward: and Imperial Health Conference, 130–1, 263n19, 268n90; and Imperial Studies, 145; journalism and

346

Index

writing, 118–19, 263n12; role in vl, 117, 119, 123, 127, 174–5, 263n15; and vl lectures, 142, 143; and vl pamphlets, 152–5, 161–2, 165; publications: Britain and the Small Nations, 154; Britain’s Part in the War, 161–4; How Britain Strove for Peace, 155; Practical Imperialism and the Ideals of Public Health, 263n15; The Press in WarTime, 119; Why Britain Is at War, 152–3 Co-operative Women’s Guild, 130, 267n81 Coulton, G.G., 25, 28, 65; The Case for Compulsory Military Service, 246n219; Compulsory Military Service, 239n111; “The Volunteer Spirit,” 26; Workers and War, 25 Cowper, Henry, 83, 252nn80–1 Cox, Harold: The Economic Strength of Great Britain, 160–1 Craik, Sir Henry, 31, 48, 61 Crewe, Lady, 117, 119 Crooks, Will, 122, 140 Crosfield, George R., 53, 55, 57, 61, 65 Currie, Sir Arthur, 168 Curtis, Lionel, 169; The Problem of the Commonwealth, 144 Curzon, Lord: and League for the Opposition to Female Suffrage, 63; and Milner, 32, 37, 61; political career, 47, 61; role in nsl, 7, 23, 47–50, 56–7, 60–3; and vl, 166; publications: Subjects of the Day, 47; War Poems and Other Translations, 50, 242n62

Darwin, John, 212 Davin, Anna, 128 Dawkins, Sir Clinton, 7 De Groot, Gerard J., 4, 162, 164, 279n245 democracy: and conscription, 25, 30, 34, 49; and Empire, 89, 92–3, 122; imperialist views of, 89; Milner’s views on, 23–4, 33–4, 128 Derby Recruiting Scheme, 24, 37, 38, 40 Disraeli, Benjamin, 117, 180 domesticated imperialism, 10, 129, 173–4, 203, 211–15, 222–4 domestic service, 217, 218, 302n261 Dominion autonomy. See under imperialism and Empire Doyle, Arthur Conan, 276n198 Duncan, C., 53, 244n189 Dunlop Smith, Sir James, 175 economic issues: financial crisis (1931) and Depression, 184, 185, 289n97; Ottawa Agreements (1932), 3, 225; tariff reform, 92, 127–8; in wartime, 160–1 education: British system, 94–5, 97, 107–13, 130, 176–7, 255n127, 256n137; and child labour, 130; curriculum modernization, 110–12; Empire-wide consistency or federation, 8, 70, 81–2, 201, 294n157; film projects, 210–11; funding for, 187; German system, 95–6, 107–8, 113; le focus on, 8–9, 77–85, 91, 106–13, 177, 187, 200–1; le textbooks, 78, 86–93, 199, 256n128; link with freedom, 108; pedagogical developments,

Index

192–3, 201–2; physical training, 49, 50, 243n175; public schools, 112, 176–7; social problems, 201–3; vl imperial education, 8, 76, 115–16, 123, 141–50, 183; and war effort, 107, 111–12; for working class, 108–10, 122, 130, 202. See also Imperial Studies; teacher exchange; teachers Education Act (1918), 50, 109, 203, 287n71, 295n171 Edwards, Bevan, 43 Egerton, Hugh E., 69, 73–4, 86, 94, 256n128; A Short History of British Colonial Policy, 74 Emmott, Lady, 117, 129 Empire (British Empire). See imperialism and Empire Empire Calendar (Hallam), 150 Empire Day, 25, 82–4, 170, 211, 219–21, 252nn80–1 Empire Day Book of Patriotism, The (Meath), 252n80 Empire Marketing Board, 218–19 Empire Settlement, 140, 172, 173, 211; Empire Settlement Act (1922), 216, 218, 219, 301n252 Empire Shopping, 211, 218–19, 222 Endure and Fight (pamphlet), 154 English, Jim, 83 essay competitions. See literature and writing Fabian Society, 51, 266n56 Federal Magazine, The. See under League of the Empire: publications Federation of University Women and Headmistresses Association, 195

347

Fellowship of the Maple Leaf, 209 Fessenden, Clementina, 25 films, 210–11, 298n213; lantern slides, 143, 210; picture talks, 203 first aid and nursing instruction, 102 First World War: casualty statistics, 104, 259nn175–6; first aid and nursing instruction, 102; impact of, 6; mourning women, 138–9, 271n133; New Armies, 11, 16; pamphlets on, 151–65; soldiers’ lectures, 146–8, 274n169; soldiers’ reading materials, 105–6, 147–8; Treaty of Versailles, 284n37; vl gravesite care and memorials, 126, 138–9. See also conscription Fisher, H.A.L., 86, 109, 123, 145 Fisher, Victor, 51, 53, 55 Fitzpatrick, F.A.: The First British Colonies, 93–4 Forster, Lady, 175–6, 178, 184, 300n236 Forster, Lord Henry, 175 Foundling Hospital Brigade, 83 Francis, Martin, 18 Fussell, Paul, 104 Gardner, Ernest: career and role in le, 69, 73, 176, 177; and Imperial Studies, 95–6, 99 Garett, Edmund, 154 Geddes Report (1921), 289n97 gender history, 5–6 general election of 1918, 36, 51, 55, 65 General Strike (1926), 181 Germany: Bismarck and Bismarckian policy, 27, 107, 159; portrayal

348

Index

in vl pamphlets, 152, 154, 155–6; schools and education system, 95–6, 107–8, 113; technical and scientific superiority, 107–8 Gilmour, David, 47 Girl Guides, 83 Glasier, Bruce, 35–7; Militarism, 36; The Peril of Conscription, 36–7 Goodenough, Frederick Crauford, 195, 292n133 Gordon, Mrs Ernest, 79 Gorell, Lord, 175, 183 Gorman, Daniel, 215 Goslett, Clare: To Girls in Wartime, 157–8 Gothard, Janice, 217, 301n252 Greenlee, James: on Hutchins, 71; on imperial educational federation, 70, 201, 294n157; on Imperial Studies and vl, 8, 9, 67, 98, 186 Gregory, Adrian, 4, 100, 163 Grenfell, Marshall Lord, 133 Grey, Albert, 4th Earl Grey, 124 Grey, Sir Edward, 153 Grigg, Edward William Macleay, 277n214; Why the Dominions Came In, 156 Guillemard, Sir Lawrence, 195–6 Gullace, Nicoletta, 158, 162 Hadow, W.H., 122, 168 Haggard, Sir H. Rider, 31 Haig, Field Marshall, 17, 57 Haldane, Lord Richard Burdon, 33, 53, 70, 243n175 Hallam, G.H., 181; Empire Calendar, 150 Hands Across the Sea (later Over-

seas Education League), 80, 186, 187, 194, 252n69 Hankin, Gerald T.: The Story of the Empire, 86, 87–8, 90, 92–3, 97 Hannon, Patrick Joseph, 49, 55, 60, 62 Harcourt, Lewis, 257n148; “The Empire and the War” (A Free Empire in Wartime), 143 Harcourt, Mrs Lewis, 100 Hardy, Thomas, 152 Harris, Henry, 233–4n30 Harrison, Brian, 262n8 Harrison, Frederic, 123, 165; The Meaning of War, 157, 158–60 Hawke, Edward G.: The British Empire and Its History, 86, 87, 89, 91–2 Hearnshaw, F.J.C., 65, 238n88, 238n97; The Ancient Defence of England, 28–9; Freedom and Service, 29 Heathorn, Stephen, 83, 87, 136, 254n100 heroism: and First World War dead, 138–9; Roberts as domesticated hero, 18, 37 Holman, W.A., 111–12, 261n205 Hong Kong, 197–8 Horsfall, Thomas Coghlan, 28, 29–30; National Service and the Welfare of the Community, 29; The Uplifting of the Nation by Compulsory Military Training, 29 hospitality (imperial hospitality): le focus and projects, 80, 84–5, 99–100, 190, 198; vl focus and projects, 8, 76, 115, 126–7, 132, 133–8, 193–8

Index

Huessler, Robert, 292n139 Hunt, Mrs Holman, 103 Hutchins, Sir Philip, 69, 71, 77–8, 79 Hyndham, H.H., 34 Imperial Conference of Teachers’ Associations, 69, 81 Imperial Conferences, 127, 193 imperial education. See education Imperial Education Conferences: (1907), 81; (1911), 81; (1916, cancelled), 82; (1919), 200; (1921, Toronto), 200; (1923), 187, 193, 200; (1924), 200; (1927), 200, 201 Imperial Federation League, 70 Imperial Health Conference, 115, 126, 129–31, 132, 141 imperial hospitality. See hospitality imperialism and Empire: in daily life, 211; domestication of, 10, 129, 173–4, 203, 211–15, 222–4; educational federation, 70, 201, 294n157; Empire as family, 93; empire building, 94, 188–9, 191; Empire wartime contributions, 166–7, 211–12; imperial autonomy (Dominion autonomy), 168–9, 181, 201, 284n37; imperial citizenship, 215; imperial federation, 70, 169, 201, 280n270, 294n157; imperial philanthropy, 132; imperial reform, 168–9; imperial unity, 136, 139, 166; as nonmilitaristic, 151, 211, 212–13; paternalist attitude with, 127, 197, 215; post-war conceptions of, 211–15; and public health, 127–9; racist attitudes with (See racial issues and racism); respect for

349

Britain, 170; Shakespeare linked with, 102–5; vl conception of, 8, 165–70, 212–14 Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, 209 imperial profiles, 221–2 Imperial Studies, 95–9, 144–6; curriculum and textbooks, 78, 96–7; failure of, 98–9, 114, 145; Joint Imperial Studies Committee, 144–5; le contributions to, 9, 67, 77, 78, 85, 95–9, 145, 199; rci contributions to, 144, 183, 203; vl contributions to, 8, 115, 142, 144–6, 203 Imperial Union of Teachers, 82, 190, 200, 248n7 Imperial War Graves Commission, 210; vl gravesite care and memorials, 126, 138–9 Independent Labour Party, 35, 36 India: British books in, 210; British newspapers in, 149; in First World War, 167; imperialist portrayals of, 14–15, 92, 156–7, 209, 213; Montagu-Chelmsford report, 169, 280–1n271; self- or home-rule for, 181, 284n38; students from, 197; vl profile of, 221 Industrial Christian Fellowship, 180 Ireland: conscription issues in, 42, 242n162; Easter Rebellion, 42, 101, 167; Home Rule, 15–16, 242n162; portrayal in vl publications, 166; Roberts’s views on, 15–16; voluntary enlistment from, 16, 101, 233–4n30 Italy: Mussolini regime, 181; vl pamphlets for, 151, 152

350

Index

Jamaica, 210, 221 James, Henry, 118; The Lesson of the Master, 262n6 Jarrett, G.W.S., 55, 244n190 Jaures, Jean, 34; Democracy and Military Service, 25 Jersey, Lady: on book distribution, 148, 209; on Empire, 170, 214; on militarism, 213; role in vl, 8, 117–18, 124, 175; on Women’s Institutes, 208; on women’s suffrage, 118, 262n8 Kipling, Rudyard: and Empire Day, 252n81; and Lady Jersey, 118; and nsl, 7; on vl, 126; works published by patriotic societies, 97, 152, 153, 222 Kitchener, Lord: and Lady Jersey, 118; New Armies and conscription issues, 11, 16, 26, 34, 233n30; and Roberts, 13, 17; souvenir Shakespeare edition, 68, 100, 102–5, 258n162 Kneeshaw, J.W., 35–6, 37; Conscription and Motherhood, 36; Conscription Enters the Workshops, 36; Conscription or Trade Unionism!, 36 Koss, Stephen, 33 Kupferburger, W.: The Union of South Africa, 206–7 labour movement and organized labour: in Ireland, 242n165; patriotic labour and the bwnl, 50–6, 63, 65; views on conscription and war effort, 34–7, 49, 50–6, 143, 163, 242n165. See also working class

Labour Party (Australia), 34, 49, 54, 205, 217, 261n205 Labour Party (Britain): in 1918 General Election, 35–6; and education issues, 202; and Empire Day, 83, 220, 252n81; imperialist views of, 89, 159, 162–3; Independent Labour Party, 35, 36; National Democratic and Labour Party (ndp), 51, 55, 65; post-war growth of, 9–10, 173, 226; vl links with, 121–3, 140, 174, 177–9, 213, 223, 227 Ladies Empire Club, 127 Lads in Blue Brigade, 83 Lambert, Richard: Parliamentary History of Conscription, 41–2 lantern slides, 145, 210 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 70, 243n170 Law, Bonar, 55, 180 League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, 223, 250n45 League for the Opposition to Female Suffrage, 63 League of the Empire (le) organization and structure: adaptability and survival, 9, 68, 222–4, 226–7; archival records, 68; branches in Canada, 105; establishment, 8–9, 71–2; leadership, 8, 68, 69–75, 99, 176, 177; membership and finances, 68–9, 85, 183, 184; as non-governmental educational body, 82, 91, 201; women’s role, 67, 71, 75, 82, 100, 103, 177 philosophy and views: conception of Empire and imperialism, 169, 214–15; educational

Index

focus, 77–85, 106–13, 177; on Germany, 107–8, 113; political non-partisanship, 107, 121, 177, 187; relationship with rci, 76, 77, 95; relationship with vl, 76–7, 95, 123–4, 183–4, 194–5, 256n128 programs and projects: Comrades Correspondence Branch, 78–9; disabled soldier’s committee (Watch-dogs Society), 103–4; distribution of reading material, 105–6; education conferences, 81–2, 91, 187, 200–1; Empire Day celebrations, 82–4, 220–1; essay and poetry contests, 79–80, 220; first aid and nursing instruction, 102; historical plays, 93; hospitality, 80, 84–5, 99–100, 198; Imperial Studies, 9, 67, 77, 78, 85, 95–9, 145, 199; Intelligence Department (Information Bureau), 81–2; Kitchener souvenir Shakespeare edition, 68, 100, 102–5, 258n162; personalized focus of, 185–6; philanthropy and civic welfare, 100–7, 114, 132; scholarships for women, 82; St Helena Government Lace School, 100; teacher exchange, 80, 186–92, 194–5, 294n157; teachers’ club and residence, 84–5, 99, 190; textbooks, 78, 86–93, 199, 256n128 publications, 85–99; imperial profiles, 221–2; The Federal Magazine, 13, 71, 75, 97–8, 108, 111, 169; Lord Roberts’s Message to

351

the Children of Britain, 13, 21; “News from Home Budgets,” 105–6; Poets of the Empire series, 222; “Service Celebration of ‘England, the Mother of Nations’”, 220, 221; ‘The All-Red Mail,’ 75, 79, 100, 105; “The British Empire and World Peace” (Reichel), 214–15 Lee, Sir Sidney, 103, 104 Lees, Lyn Hollen, 197 legislation: Education Act (1918), 50, 109, 203, 287n71, 295n171; Empire Settlement Act (1922), 216, 218, 219, 301n252; factory laws, 128, 266n70; National Service Acts (1916), 11, 37, 41–2; Representation of the People Act (1918), 63; Teachers’ Superannuation Act (1926), 188 Leverhulme, Lady, 180 Liberal Party: and conscription, 33–4, 38, 41; and New Liberalism, 88, 154, 254n105; and vl, 179–80 Liberal Women’s Association, 143 Light, Alison, 139, 174 literature and writing: essay and poetry competitions, 79–80, 123, 203, 219–20, 259n166; imperialist or patriotic poetry, 153–4, 220, 222; literary propaganda, 152; patriotic or imperialist publications for children, 13, 20–1, 86–94, 153–4, 165, 207; war poets, 12, 164, 222, 242n161. See also specific authors Lloyd, Archdeacon George Exton, 209

352

Index

Lloyd George, David: coalition government of, 55, 109, 187, 275n181; and Grigg, 277n214; and Irish Home Rule, 242n162; at Ministry of Munitions, 22; War Cabinet, 61 Lloyd George, Miss, 180 London County Council: and Empire Day, 220; estates run by, 106; le portrayal of, 202; and le teacher exchange program, 187, 189; vl members on, 122, 177; and voluntary enlistment, 112 London House, 195, 197, 292n244, 293n147 London Teachers’ Association, 151, 203, 210 Long, Walter, 84 Lovat, Lord, 143 Lucas, Sir Charles, 44, 123 Lucas-Tooth, Sir Robert, 251n65 Lyttelton, Alfred, 70 Lyttelton, Mrs Alfred (Dame Edith), 8, 117, 129, 131, 151 MacDonell, Amice, 93 MacKenzie, John, 67, 220; Propaganda and Empire, 211–12 Mackinder, Halford, 122, 128, 145 Macleod, R. (nsl secretary), 42, 44–5, 53, 55, 65 Malcolm, Sir Neill, 195 Mangan, J.A., 75 Mansbridge, Albert, 109, 122, 178 Maple Leaf Club, 135 Market Harborough, 218, 301n252 Markham, Violet: career and role in vl, 117, 119–21, 122; on racial issues, 120, 197; and social impe-

rialist projects, 128–9, 131, 132; on women’s suffrage, 120; publications: Britain’s Part in the War (chapter on munitions), 162, 165; The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions, 128, 266n70; South Africa: Past and Present, 120 Marshall, Mrs Ord (neé Elizabeth Middleton Beloe): life and family, 71, 101, 248n20; role in le, 8, 67, 69, 71–2, 75, 86, 177; teachers’ residence named for, 190 Marwick, Arthur, 3 Masterman, C.F.G., 151 McCarthy, Helen, 5–6 McKibbin, Ross, 5 Meakin, Annette: Enlistment or Conscription?, 26, 27 Meath, Lord: and Empire Day, 25, 259n166; The Empire Day Book of Patriotism, 252n80; and imperial education, 25, 77, 109; and nsl, 25, 37, 44 Middleton, Lady, 285n45 militarism: and conscription, 30, 36; and Empire Day, 83; Germany identified with (Prussian militarism), 36, 52, 67, 96, 108; nsl identified with, 42–4, 58, 211, 226; post-war distaste for, 9, 18, 213, 225, 228; and pre-war patriotism, 9, 17; vs sane (nonmilitaristic) imperialism, 125, 151, 165–6, 189, 213, 214–15 Millman, Brock, 245n198 Mills, J. Saxon, 268n91 Milner, Lord Alfred: and Boer War, 118, 120; and bwnl, 51, 55; and Curzon, 32, 37; and Empire Day,

Index

252n81; and Markham, 120; marriage, 14, 23; and Pollock, 70; role in nsl, 7, 23–4, 31–4, 37, 43–4, 59–61, 65; and tariff reform, 128; and vl, 179; England in Egypt, 120 Mitchell, Rosslyn, 179 Mond, Sir Alfred, 31 Money, Leo Chiozza, 31 Montagu-Chelmsford report, 169, 280–1n271 Morkill, A.G., 196, 292–3nn139–140 Morton, Desmond, 271n137 Mott, R.J.K., 232n9 Mussolini, Benito, 181 Natal, 221 National Democratic and Labour Party (ndp), 51, 55, 65 National Democratic League, 51 National Federation of Discharged and Demobilized Sailors and Soldiers, 57 National Political League, 180 National Register, 24 National Relief Fund, 119 National Service Acts (1916), 11, 37, 41–2 National Service League (nsl) organization and structure: demise, 11, 58–65, 226; establishment, 7; leadership, 7, 23, 63–4; membership and finances, 7, 41–2, 58–60, 63; proposed amalgamation with rci, 39, 42–50, 52, 54, 56; relationship with Labour movement, 34–7, 46, 49, 50–7; Roberts’s role in, 7, 11–22, 237n85

353

philosophy and views: in conscription debates, 22–38; masculine identity, 24, 40; militaristic identity, 42–4, 58, 211, 226; on National Service Acts, 11, 41–2, 60; on Northcliffe manifesto, 31–2, 34; on opposition to conscription, 35–6; on outbreak of First World War, 12–13; on training and conscription, 7, 24, 32–3, 237–8n85; on women’s roles, 14–15 programs and projects: Curzon’s proposals for, 56–7; field glasses and saddle collection, 13, 20, 40, 240n135; nsl/bwnl scheme for post-war national training, 52–4; pro-conscription propaganda, 32–3, 39–40; Voluntary Recruiting League, 13, 40; wartime initiatives, 40–1; workshops for disabled soldiers, 20, 40, 235–6n52 publications: The Causes of the Great War, 14, 27; The Nation in Arms, 13; Occasional Notes (1915), 32–3, 58; The Supreme Duty of the Citizen, 27 National Transport Workers Federation, 35 National Union of Ex-Servicemen, 57 National Union of Teachers, 203, 210 Navy League, 24, 180, 265n44 Newbolt, Sir Henry, 222 Newfoundland, 84, 188, 210, 221, 293n147 New Liberalism, 88, 154, 254n105

354

Index

Newton, Lord, 7, 31, 51 New Zealand: British publications in, 210; British women immigrants in, 216–18; imperialist portrayals of, 89, 168, 203–5, 221; Maori population and culture, 191, 204; soldiers in First World War, 168; teacher exchanges, 188, 191, 288n77 Ney, Fred J., 85 Nicholson, Virginia, 190 Northcliffe, Lord, 31–2, 34, 35, 37 Northumberland, 8th Duke of (Alan Percy), 178 Oceana Club, 137–8 Oliver, F.S., 238n86; Ordeal by Battle, 19, 27–8 Order of St John, 146 Ormsby-Gore, Lady Beatrice, 175, 184 Ormsby-Gore, William (later Lord Harlech), 175 Osborne, John, 24 Ottawa Agreement (1932), 3, 225 Ottoman Empire, 155 Overseas Education League (formerly Hands Across the Sea), 80, 186, 187, 194, 252n69 Overseas League (formerly Overseas Club), 77, 265n44 Overseas Reception Committee, 135 Owen, Wilfred, 12 Oxford University: Egerton at, 73–4; le scholarships at, 82; Pollard at, 72; Sadler at, 155 pacifism and conscientious objectors, 51, 52, 160, 162, 225

Panayi, Panikos, 107 Parkman, Francis: Pioneers of France in the New World, 97 Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, 142 Pedersen, Susan, 6 Peel House Club, 135 philanthropy and civic welfare: children’s participation in, 100–1, 105–6; domestic philanthropy, 106; female or maternalistic philanthropy, 101, 137–9; le projects for, 100–7, 114; and social imperialism, 120, 125, 127–9, 132, 140, 164, 171; vl projects for, 125–33 Pickles, Katie, 209, 215 Pincombe, W.J.: Britain and Gallant Belgium, 154 Playne, Caroline, 235n45 plays, 93 Plunkett, Sir Horace, 16 Poe, Sir Hucheson, 16 poetry. See literature and writing Pollard, A.F.: role in le, 8, 69, 72–3, 86–7, 97–8; The British Empire: Its Past, Its Present and Its Future, 86–7, 88, 90–1, 95 Pollock, Sir Frederick: career and character, 70; on imperial citizenship, 215; on imperial education, 95, 112; publications by, 86, 276n198; role in le, 8, 69–71, 177 Ponsonby, Arthur, 164 Porter, Bernard, 67, 83, 294n152 positivism, 158–9 Pott, Gladys, 300n236 Powell, Violet, 118 practical or sane imperialism, 115, 125, 130, 171, 175, 223; and Impe-

Index

rial Health Conference, 266n56, 267n88, 268n91 Price, T.W., 261n207 Primrose League: patriotic or imperialist focus, 48, 211; political partisanship, 7, 88, 100, 180, 219; wartime projects, 24, 106 Primrose League Gazette, 21, 257n150 Prochaska, Frank, 259n168 Property Defence League, 254n101 Prothero, G.W., 276n198 racial issues and racism: in Australia, 205; with foreign students, 195, 197; imperialism and racial hierarchies, 91–2, 120, 204–6; in le textbooks, 91–2; in New Zealand, 204; with Rhodes Scholarships, 293n147; in South Africa, 206–7; with vl hospitality, 127 Red Cross Society, 102, 132, 137–8, 146–7 Redmond, John, 16, 242n165 Reeves, W. Pember, 70 Reichel, Sir Harry, 108, 214–15; “The British Empire and World Peace,” 214–15 Reid, Stuart: Life and Letters of the First Lord Durham, 97 Rendall, Montagu (headmaster of Winchester), 75, 112, 176–7, 250n29 Representation of the People Act (1918), 63 Rhodes, Cecil, 203, 293n147 Rhodesia, 84, 188 Rhodes Trust: bursaries for teacher exchange, 188, 288n77; grants to

355

le, 69, 85, 183, 184, 248n7; grants to vl, 124, 182–3, 184, 248n7, 285n49; Rendall’s work with, 177, 250n39; Rhodes Scholarships, 74, 82, 197, 293n147 Rickards, A.G., 238n97 Ridley, J.H.L., 151, 154; A Talk to the School Children of Britain, 153 Riedi, Eliza, 125, 138 Roberts, Lady Aileen (Countess Roberts, daughter of Lord Frederick), 40, 43, 61 Roberts, Lord Frederick: antiquated views, 14–15; appeal for field glasses and saddles, 13, 20, 40, 240n135; and Curzon, 48; death and funeral, 14–15, 17–22; disabled soldiers’ workshops, 20, 40, 235–6n52; domesticated hero identity, 18, 37; and Empire Day, 83; and First World War, 12–13, 17; in India, 14–15, 166; in Ireland, 15–16; and Kitchener, 13; press and literary portrayals of, 18–20; role in nsl, 7, 11–22, 237–8n85; speeches, 12, 231n5, 232n20, 234n37; on women’s wartime roles, 14–15; Lord Roberts’s Message to the Children of Britain, 13, 21; The Supreme Duty of the Citizen at the Present Crisis, 13, 27 Robertson, John Mackinnon: The Future of Militarism, 28 Robertson, Sir George, 15 Rochdale, Lord, 61 Ronaldshay, Lord, 47 Roscoe. J.E.: Conscription in the Bible, 26, 237n79

356

Index

Rotary International, 6 Royal Club, Norfolk House, 137 Royal Colonial Institute (rci): establishment and aims, 8, 42–3; and Imperial Studies, 144, 183, 203; proposed amalgamation with nsl, 39, 42–50, 52, 54, 56; relationship with le, 74, 76, 77, 95, 265n44; relationship with vl, 123–4, 183, 265n44; women’s role in, 43, 44–5 Russia: conscription in, 13; imperialist portrayals of, 154, 159, 213, 274n169; Revolution and civil war, 66, 135, 179 Sadler, M.E., 165; Modern Germany and the Modern World, 155–6 St Helena Government Lace School, 100 Salisbury, 4th Marquess, 175, 243n175, 247n224 Salvation Army, 132 sane imperialism. See practical or sane imperialism Sargant, E.B. and Marie: The Country’s Call, 153–4 Sassoon, Siegfried, 12 Schreiner, W.P., 169, 280n267 Scott, Joan Wallach, 6 Seddon, James Andrew, 51, 53, 54, 55; Why British Labour Supports the War, 52 Selborne, Lady, 117 Self-Supporting Empire League, 180 Semmel, Bernard: Imperialism and Social Reform, 127–8 Service, Robert, 97 settlement movement, 192, 290n109

Settlers’ Welcome, 126–7, 140, 215–18 Shaftesbury, Lord, 180 Shakespeare, William, 153; Kitchener souvenir edition, 68, 100, 102–5, 258n162 Shanghai, 197 Shaw, George Bernard, 266n56 Shee, George F., 46, 53, 61–2; The Briton’s First Duty, 61 Simon, Sir John, 38 Skrine, Henry: Wanted!: A Citizen Army and Navy, 26 Snowden, Mrs Philip, 178–9, 213; Through Bolshevik Russia, 179 Social Democratic Federation, 34 Social Democratic Party, 51 social imperialism: and compulsory military service, 128; definitions of, 127–8; and Imperial Health Conference, 129–31; and imperial philanthropy, 132; and vl projects, 120, 125, 127–8, 132, 140, 164, 171 socialism and socialists, 25, 34, 88 Socialist National Defence Committee, 51, 52 Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women (sosbw), 216, 218, 299n234, 300n236 Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, 235n52 South Africa: Boer War, 15, 16, 118, 120, 138, 167, 206–7; British newspapers in, 149; Guild of Loyal Women, 138; home rule for, 169, 280n267; imperialist portrayals of, 92, 167, 206, 221; involvement with vl projects,

Index

134, 135–6, 138; racism and racial issues in, 206–7; teacher exchanges, 188 South Africa Gifts and Comforts Organization Committee, 134 Special Education Congress: (1926, Paris), 191, 200; (1928), 201 Spitzel, Louis, 86 Springhall, J.O., 220 Stamfordham, Lord, 33–4 Stanton, G.B., 53, 244n189 Statute of Westminster, 3, 181, 201 Streets, Heather, 233n25 Stride, W.K.: Empire Builders, 94 Stubbs, John, 51–2 suffrage for women, 63, 118, 120, 262n8 Summers, Anne, 65 Swinburne, Algernon Charles, 154 Switzerland, 30, 34 Talbot, Meriel, 121, 267n88, 300n236 Talbot, Sir Reginald, 238n97 tariff reform, 92, 127–8; Tariff Reform League, 49, 127, 246n213; Women’s Unionist and Tariff Reform Association, 257n150 Taylor, Miles, 304n3 teacher exchange: administrative issues, 187; benefits of, 190–1; and empire building, 188–9, 191; financial assistance for, 188, 288n77; hospitality for, 190, 194–5; legislation and rules for, 187–8, 287n73; pedagogical developments with, 192–3; post-war, 186–92, 194–5, 294n157; pre-war, 80, 186–7

357

teacher migration, 186–7 teachers: certification for, 81; men as, 187; salaries for, 187, 190–1; women as, 188, 282n16, 287n71, 289n97. See also education Teachers’ Superannuation Act (1926), 188 Temple, Rev. William, 109–10, 111; Christianity and Social Order, 261n197 Tennant, Mrs H.J. (May), 128, 266nn69–70 textbooks. See under education Thomas, Mrs J.H., 179 Thompson, Andrew S., 266n56, 271n137 Tomlinson, Sir George, 198 Tosh, John, 23 Toynbee Hall, 290n109 Trades Union Congress (tuc), 35, 51 Travers, Tim, 235n48 Trevelyan, George Macaulay, 154, 159, 165, 277n210 Trinidad, 210 Tweedmouth, Lady, 8, 117 unemployment: and philanthropic projects, 131; and St Helena Government Lace School, 100; in wartime, 160–1; of women settlers in Australia, 217 Unemployment Assistance Board, 119 Union for Democratic Control, 35 Union Jack, 25, 84, 150 university extension movement, 110, 208

358

Index

University of Cambridge: Cavendish Laboratories, 112; le scholarships at, 82 University of London: foreign students at, 195, 292n131; Gardner at, 73; le scholarships at, 82; Pollard at, 72; vl lectures at, 208 Vaughan, Crawford, 205 veterans’ associations, 56–7 Victoria League (vl) organization and structure: adaptability and survival, 9, 222–4, 227; branches, 122, 123, 125, 185; finances, 124–5, 135, 183, 285nn45–6; leadership, 77, 115, 117–21, 174–6; membership, 115, 121, 124–5, 184–5; women’s roles, 115, 116–17 philosophy and views: conception of Empire and imperialism, 8, 165–70, 212–14; Curzon’s description of, 166; on imperial unity, 136, 139; personalized focus, 185–6; political non-partisanship, 116–17, 121, 122, 144, 160, 170, 177–81, 219; relationship with le, 76–7, 95, 123–4, 183–4, 194–5, 256n128; relationship with rci, 123–4, 183; and social imperialism, 120, 125, 127–8, 132, 140, 164, 171; wartime focus of, 115, 125–41, 199 programs and projects: book and newspaper distribution, 106, 141, 147–8, 148–9, 209–10; clubs for soldiers and sailors, 126; Empire Day celebrations,

170, 219–20; Empire Shopping, 218–19; essay or poetry competitions, 123, 203; gravesite care and memorials, 126, 138–9; hospitality, 8, 76, 115, 126–7, 132, 133–8, 193–8; imperial education, 8, 76, 115–16, 123, 141–50, 183; Imperial Health Conference, 115, 126, 129–31, 132, 141; Imperial Studies, 8, 115, 142, 144–6, 203; Labour and working class involvement with, 122–3, 142–3, 158–60, 163, 178–9, 213; Ladies Empire Club, 127; lectures, 116, 141–4, 146–8, 199, 208–9, 274n169, 274n172; London House, 195, 197, 292n244, 293n147; philanthropic work, 125–6, 131–3; “picture talks,” 203; propaganda pamphlets, 116, 119, 141, 142, 150–65, 171–2, 199, 203–7; Settlers’ Welcome, 126–7, 140, 215–18; and sosbw, 300n236; use of film or lantern slides, 143, 203, 210–11, 298n213; Victoria League Clubs, 126, 133–8; wartime role for Dominion matters, 132 publications: Empire Pamphlet series, 203–7; imperial profiles, 221; Britain and Gallant Belgium (Pincombe), 154; Britain and the Small Nations (Cook), 154; Britain’s Part in the War (Cook, Jersey, et al.), 161–4; The Country’s Call (ed. Sargant and Sargant), 153–4; The Economic Strength of Great Britain (Cox),

Index

160–1; The Empire in the Home, 218; Endure and Fight, 154; The Factory and Shop Acts of the British Dominions, 128, 266n70; A Free Empire in Wartime (Harcourt), 143; To Girls in Wartime (Goslett), 157–8; Hosts and Guests in Wartime, 136; How Britain Strove for Peace (Cook), 155; The Meaning of War (Harrison), 157, 158–60; Modern Germany and the Modern World (Saddler), 155–6; Monthly Notes, 122, 144, 150, 168, 170, 180, 213, 221; Practical Imperialism and the Ideals of Public Health, 115–72, 263n15; A Talk to the School Children of Britain (Ridley), 153; Why Britain Is at War (Cook), 152–3; Why India Is Heart and Soul with Great Britain (Basu), 156–7; Why the Dominions Came In (Grigg), 156 Victoria League for Commonwealth Friendship, 223, 250n45 Villiers, George, 8th Lord Jersey, 117 Vivian, Henry, 129 Voluntary Recruiting League, 13, 40 Waifs and Strays’ Society, 132 Waites, Bernard, 163 Ward, Mrs Humphrey, 63 Webb, Sidney, 1st Baron Passfield, 179 Weber, Thomas, 74 Wedgwood, Josiah, 31 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, 127 Welldon, Bishop J.E.C., 31, 108, 110–11, 112, 113

359

Wellington, 1st Duke of (Arthur Wellesley), 18, 21 Wellington, 4th Duke of (Arthur Charles Wellesley), 37, 48, 61 Wells, H.G., 152 White Book (diplomatic correspondence), 152–3, 276n198 Whitley, J.H., and Whitley Report, 148, 275n181 Willoughby de Broke, Lord, 31 Wilson, Sir Harry, 42, 44, 46 women: and domesticated imperialism, 10, 129, 173–4, 203, 211–15, 222–4; in domestic service, 217, 218, 302n261; emigration and Empire Settlement, 140, 172, 173, 211, 216–18; and Empire Shopping, 218; first aid and nursing instruction for, 102; lectures for, 142–3, 144; maternalistic philanthropy, 101; military training for, 30; mourning First World War dead, 138–9; pamphlets for, 157–8; as politicians, 118, 119; post-war emigration, 215–18, 300n244; in rci, 43, 44–5; scholarships for, 82; single, 190, 216–17; suffrage for, 63, 118, 120, 262n8; as teachers, 188, 282n16, 287n71, 289n97; wartime help for, 137–9; wartime roles and work for, 14–15, 132, 157–8, 161, 162 Women’s Guild of Empire, 180 Women’s Institutes, 208–9 Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League, 118 Women’s Provisional Club, 6 Women’s Unionist and Tariff Reform Association, 257n150

360

Woollacott, Angela, 158, 191, 193, 213 Workers’ Educational Association (wea), 111, 148, 178, 261n197, 261n207; War and the Workers (Zimmern), 278n233 working class: child care and child labour, 129–30; conscription issues for, 25, 27, 37, 46; education issues for, 109–10, 192–3, 202–3, 294n152, 295n171; and imperialist pamphlets and lectures, 142–3, 158–63, 178–9, 208; and social imperialism, 127–9,

Index

128. See also class issues; labour movement and organized labour World War I. See First World War Wrench, Evelyn, 77 Yerburgh, Robert, 31 ymca (Young Men’s Christian Association), 143, 146, 148 Young Britons, 180 Younghusband, Sir Francis, 145 Zimmern, Alfred E., 162; War and the Workers, 278n233