Palmerston: O is for Ottoman Empire

We continue our P-A-L-M-E-R-S-T-O-N series with ‘O’ for Ottoman, as we take a look through Palmerston’s military and diplomatic papers with a focus on the 1840 ‘Oriental Crisis’.

Illustration from Constantinople in 1828 by Charles Macfarlane, 1829 [Rare Books DR721]

Our first document is a memorandum written by Palmerston in September 1839, recommending actions to be adopted by the British government in response to events that later spiralled into a geopolitical shock that became known as the ‘Oriental Crisis of 1840’:

“19 Sept. 1839

Mehemet Ali [Muhammad Ali, Pasha of Egypt] to be informed that the Five Powers have resolved to support the Sultan [Abdulmejid I – Sultan of the Ottoman Empire] in proposing to him the following arrangement. Mehemet Ali and his male descendants to be appointed by the Sultan hereditary governors of Egypt in the name and under the authority of the Sultan; […] Mehemet Ali to evacuate all the districts and places and parts which he now occupies beyond the limits of Egypt; and to restore the Turkish fleet […].”

MS62/PP/MM/TU/16: Memorandum on measures to be taken against Mehemet Ali, 19 Sep 1839

This memorandum was written in the context of the Second Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–41). Muhamad Ali was nominally only the Ottoman viceroy in Egypt, but since 1805 he had been de facto ruler of Egypt and had been building his own personal power base there for decades. During the earlier Greek War of Independence (1821-9), fought by the Greeks against the Ottoman Empire, Muhammad Ali’s Egyptian forces had come to the aid of the Ottoman Turks and as a reward for this assistance, Ali was promised possessions in Ottoman Syria. When the Ottomans failed to deliver on this, Muhammad Ali’s forces took possession of Syria by force and by 1840 had expanded into other parts of the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia sided with one another to support the Ottomans against Muhammad Ali and his Egyptian forces; collectively they were referred to as the ‘Five Powers’. The European powers had a self-interest in maintaining stability in the eastern Mediterranean and Muhammad Ali’s success in Syria could destabilise the region and even threatened the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire. France and Spain, meanwhile, were sympathetic to Egypt. From 1830 France had been conquering territory in Algeria and was now hoping to increase its influence in north Africa through alliance with Muhammad Ali in Egypt.

In a memorandum written early the following year, Palmerston’s questions on the readiness of British ships in the Mediterranean are answered:

“In answer to Lord Palmerston’s questions on Lord Ponsonby’s despatches nos. 20 and 24, in which Lord Palmerston desires to be informed what instructions have been given to the British Admiral with reference to the contingency of the Egyptian fleet going up to the Dardanelles; the British Admiral has no instructions on that point. And the instructions now in force are sent herewith.

A copy of Colonel Hodges’s despatch reporting reporting Mehemet Ali’s [Muhammad Ali, Pasha of Egypt] intention to go to war near the Dardanelles was sent to the Admiralty on the 14^th February.

The combined Egyptian and Turkish fleet will consist of 19 sail of the line, some of them very heavy ships, besides frigates etc., and it appears in the papers that the British fleet in the Mediterranean, after the departure of the Rodney 92 [HMS Rodney (1833)] and Vanguard 84 [HMS Vanguard (1835)] which are stated to be ordered home, will consist of only 10 sail of the line, supposing the Asia 84 [HMS Asia (1824)] is not also ordered home and is stated.

If any instructions on Lord Ponsonby’s despatches are to be sent to the Admiral, they might be conveyed by a Queen’s Messenger who, if despatched tonight, would reach Marseilles in time for the French Packet to Malta of the 1^st of March.

February 24 [18]40”

MS62/PP/MM/TU/20: Memo relative to Turkish and Egyptian Fleets, 24 Feb 1840

It was not just the threat of instability to trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean that worried Britain and other European powers. Amongst Palmerston’s memoranda on Turkey is a copy of a letter that would be published in an edition of the Allgemeine Zeitung – the leading political daily in Germany in the first part of the nineteenth century:

“Of all the circumstances attending the complications which have for some time past existed in the east of Europe, that which has most surprised us, is the conduct produced by France, for if ever there was a question upon which all good governments in Europe might be expected to unite – cordially together in principle and in action, the Turko-Egyptian question is one.

What is that question? It is neither more nor less than this, first whether a rebellious subject shall be allowed to plunder and finally, to dethrone his lawful sovereign, and secondly, whether for the promotion of his ambitious visions he should be allowed to destroy the balance of power in Europe and perhaps involve the whole continent in a general war. […]”

MS62/PP/MM/TU/21: Letter published in the Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 March 1840

The 28 March, 1840 edition of the Allgemeine Zeitung [MS62/PP/MM/TU/21]

Palmerston’s letter in the Allgemeine Zeitung demonstrates his media savvy, as he engages with the press in order to influence public opinion. In this instance, it was through a German newspaper that Palmerston wished to depict a united front of Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia against the wayward direction France was adopting. In this letter we are given a distinctly negative portrayal of Muhammad Ali, Pasha of Egypt, as a tyrant over his own people and a traitor to his ‘lawful sovereign’ – Abdulmejid I, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Palmerston makes the allegation that Muhammad Ali intended to enslave Greeks during their War of Independence and repopulate their lands with Arabs, in order to elicit high feelings from European newspaper readers against Ali’s conduct; this is despite the fact that the Greeks fought their war against the Ottoman Empire directly.

Abdulmejid I is painted as the victim who has adopted a moderate policy of reform – this is in reference to his Gülhane Hatt-ı Şerif, or the “Supreme Edict of the Rosehouse”, which initiated a period of political reform in Turkish history, including promises to guarantee rights to all Ottoman citizens regardless of religion or ethnic group, which Palmerston welcomed in the spirit of liberal constitutional reform. Fear of a wider war and geopolitical instability may have been a sincere concern, but it is interesting that one of the justifications given for resistance to Muhammad Ali’s ambitions was the example it might set in encouraging other subject peoples to rebel against their ‘lawful sovereigns’. Germans or Britons of this period would definitely not have considered a victorious Napoleonic empire over Europe a ‘lawful sovereign’, or indeed the Ottoman Turks as lawful sovereigns over Greece, but imperialism often involves a contradiction, in terms of ‘rights for us, or our friends, but not for them’.

At the same time that Palmerston was busy influencing public opinion he was also working privately behind the scenes, writing to ministers and diplomats, gathering intelligence on the naval prowess of both Muhammad Ali of Egypt as well as the French. In a letter dated 17 April 1840, Palmerston is advised by Lord Minto, First Lord of the Admiralty, on the state of readiness of the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean, which in the spring of 1840 was not fully manned. Minto advises Palmerston that HMS Vanguard (1835) and HMS Rodney (1833) were not fully manned and that HMS Donegal (1798) is in ‘a very wary condition’.

On 15 July 1840 the Five Powers signed the Convention of London – this offered Muhammad Ali and his heirs continued rule over Egypt, Sudan and the Eyalet of Acre in return for an end to hostilities; the same basic terms as outlined in Palmerston’s memoranda of September 1839.

Muhammad Ali, apparently backed by France, refused this offer but the French subsequently declined to be drawn into open conflict with the other European powers. When Austria and Britain began successful military actions in aid of the Ottomans in September 1840, Muhammad Ali and the Egyptians withdrew from Syria, the Hijaz, the Holy Land, Adana and Crete and handed back the Ottoman naval fleet, which had defected to join the Egyptians in June 1840. Muhammad Ali and his heirs were granted the right to rule over Egypt and Sudan and Ali accepted the Convention of London on 27 November 1840.

Frontispiece from The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire by Sir Paul Rycaut, 1686 [Rare Books Hartley Coll. DR424]

“A Parliament is a forum of freedom. This… campaign for the Release of Soviet Jews can find no better platform”: the British Government’s efforts in the release of Soviet Jewry

This blog will discuss the British government’s efforts in the release of Soviet Jewry, using the Papers of MP Greville Janner that are part of the MS254 A980 Papers of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry.

“What is labour camp, Russian style really like?” article [MS254/1/2/16]

The quote in the title is from Summary of paper on parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry- presented to European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner, QC. MP, Vice Chairman, British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/24].

Summary of paper on parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry- presented to European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner, QC. MP, Vice Chairman, British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/24].

The Soviet Jewry movement

The Soviet Jewry movement emerged in response to the Soviet Union’s Jewish policy which was seen as a violation of basic human and civil rights, including freedom of immigration, freedom of religion, and the freedom to study one’s own language, history and culture. The Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry, known as the 35’s, was a pressure group established in London in 1971 with the aim of assisting Russian Jews wishing to leave the country but refused permission. These people were known as Refuseniks.

Members of the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry during a protest march [MS254/A980/4/22/22]

The establishment of the British All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry

On 20 October 1971 the All Party Committee for the release of Soviet Jewry was formed. The committee looked something like this:

Chairman: Patrick Cormack

Vice-Chairman: Peter Archer

Honorary Secretary: Greville Janner

Honorary Treasurer: Hugh Dykes

Secretary to Committee: Mirs Veronica Hodges

Clerk to Committee: Jerry Lewis

Refusenik case study: Dr Yegveny Levich

In 1973 The All-Party Committee learnt with concern of the abduction of Dr Yegveny Levich on his 25th birthday. Dr Levich was the younger son of the Academician Benjamin Levich who was in the process of being dismissed from the Academy of Sciences for applying for him and his family to emigrate.

A number of Members of Parliament put down the following Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons:

“That this house deplores the abduction of Yegveny Levich, 26 year-old astrophysicist, son of Academician Benjamin Levich, of Moscow, who was taken by militia from his car while on his way to hospital and whose whereabouts are not now known; and calls on the Soviet authorities to free him forthwith and to permit all the Levich family to emigrate in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Parliamentary Committee sent the following telegram to Mr Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who was in Germany at the time:

 “The All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry respectfully request immediate investigation into circumstances of arrest and subsequent press ganging of Dr Yegveny Levich into Soviet Army. He is seriously ill. The Welcome détente with USSR is jeopardised by the unprecedented mistreatment of a distinguished Jewish scientist.

Signed Patrick Cormack, Peter Archer, Hugh Dykes, Greville Janner”

The following notices of questions and motions were also given on Wednesday 27 October 1971:

“Motion Treatment of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

–              Calls on Her Majesty’s Government to use its best endeavours and influence to secure and ensure respect of the human rights of the Jews who have been refused permission to emigrate to Israel and Russia’s refusal to permit Soviet Jews to freely practise their religion and to maintain their culture.

–              To make special representations on behalf of those 39 Russian Jews, arrested in Moscow on 25th March 1970, for demonstrating on behalf of their relatives. Themselves arrested for seeking to emigrate to Israel.

–              Calls upon Her Majesty’ Government to protest at the refusal of the Soviet authorities to permit foreign Press or observers to attend the current show trials of Soviet Jews.

–              Calls for Her Majesty’s Government to bring to the attention of the Soviet Government the fact that more honourable Members have signed the honourable Members of Leicester North-West’s Motion calling attention to the plight of Russian Jewry, and that in the circumstances, the Soviet Government should now release its Jewish Prisoners of Conscience and in particular Silva Zlamason and Raiza Palatnik, who are in a desperate poor state of health as a result of their confinement in their strict regime labour camp. And the Soviet Government should now act in a civilised manner and in accordance with the international treaty and obligations and release those of its Jewish minority who wish to be repatriated with their families in Israel.”

Building support over the United Kingdom

Within the Janner papers are evidence of Members of Parliament attempting to build awareness of Refuseniks and how they were being treated in Russia. Janner spoke at a Bournemouth action committee meeting on 3 June 1972, which was organised by the Bournemouth branch of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women. The meeting was held to protest against the treatment of Soviet Jews. Janner told the meeting that Jews in professional jobs who had applied for visas to emigrate to Israel had lost their jobs and been forced to build roads or join the army or be imprisoned. Committees to help Soviet Jews were springing up all over Britain he added. The women present at the meeting formed the 35 Group after hearing a talk by Mrs Janner. They planned to intercede for imprisoned Jewesses and stand in vigil outside the Soviet Embassy. Janner later received a letter from a Mr K. Kirsch of Bournemouth to inform him that a committee had been established, namely the Bournemouth Non-Denomination Action Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry. The Bournemouth group planned peaceful demonstrations, letters to people in prison, phone calls to those being harassed, and a Bournemouth 35 group was also formed.

Meetings were also addressed in Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Bristol. Members of All Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry constantly harassed members of the Soviet Embassy and raised questions in Parliament.

Janner described the great work being done by the “35 group” and how these ladies devoted a great deal of time bringing the plight of Soviet Jews to public notice and by telephoning Soviet Jews in Russia to let them know they are not forgotten.

Use of political connections in the United Kingdom and across the world

Key documents within the papers of Greville Janner reflect efforts made to use political connections to galvanise support for the Refuseniks and to use political influence to make a difference to the way they were being treated. Such documents include correspondence with Winston Churchill’s grandson, Winston Churchill and former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson. In September 1971 Janner thanked Winston Churchill for joining Patrick and himself to form the new All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry. He also requested him to be Chairman and revealed his wish to launch the operation on 20 October 1971.

Letter from Winston S. Churchill accepting membership of the committee, 6 October 1971 [MS254/A980/1/2/22]

In February 1972 Janner requested Harold Wilson to make a ‘behind the scenes’ approach to assist Vladimir Slepak in leaving Moscow with his wife and 12 year old son. Janner later sent Wilson a list of persons in Moscow who have children in England, of which Wilson promised to take with him on his trip to Moscow and attempt to try to get the fathers released.

When in Washington for the World Jewish Congress meeting, Greville Janner had a series of meetings with the United States Senators and Congressmen to discuss how Parliamentarians in the two countries could coordinate their efforts in the campaign. Among the results of this initiative was a joint approach by Senator Abe Ribicoff and Mr Janner to the Soviet, United States and British Foreign Ministers and Belgrade delegates on behalf of the Slepak family (of whom Janner has campaigned for seven years for their release); plans for future cooperation with Senator Jack Javits and arrangements for the exchange of information in future.

A letter is also included to the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Joseph Godber, ESQ. MP, on 28 July 1972 requesting to look into the matter of Academician Benjamin Levich who had been offered and had accepted a fellowship at the University College, Oxford and yet had been refused permission to leave Russia. Janner requests Godber to take up his case with the Russian authorities.

Methods used to raise public awareness of the treatment of Soviet Jewry

By reading the minutes of meetings of the All-Party Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry, you can find out what methods were used to help the Refuseniks. Methods included visits to Russia to make contact with Jewish activists, visits to Israel, writing letters to the major newspapers such as The Times on the cause, raising awareness of the problems of Soviet Jewry at events during Soviet Delegation visits, and even attempting to disallow Soviet politicians from entering the country until Refuseniks were permitted to leave the Soviet Union.

On 2 July 1974 an exhibition was held at St Martin’s in the Fields Church for two weeks designed to highlight the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union which was sponsored by the Parliamentary All-Party Committee and opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This included a number of photographs of the Moscow synagogue by Mel Di Giacomo.

The All-Party Committee even received guidance from the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry on writing letters to the Refusenik to ensure they wrote their letters in a way that would ensure they went to the addressee and would not be destroyed by Soviet authorities.

Guidance for letter-writers to ‘Refuseniks’ and Soviet Jewish Prisoners of Conscience by the Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry [MS254/A980/1/2/30]

Below is a summary of parliamentary action for release of Soviet Jewry presented to the European Parliamentary Conference of Soviet Jewry, Paris, 22 April 1977 by Greville Janner:

“Methods of pressure, which have proved helpful:

(1)          Top level, behind the scenes – requests by Presidents, Prime Ministers, governments or trade unions for (a) changes in general policy and/or (b) release of individuals. Pressures usually brought at request of Parliamentarians and/or constituents- and at best reflect manifest feeling in country concerned.

(2)          Delegations visiting Soviet Union- parliamentary, trade union and trade- emphasising the difficulties of “doing business” (political or commercial) with Soviet Union while e.g. Anatoli Sharansky in prison or e.g. Slepak family harassed.

(3)          Scientific Delegations- or individual visits – emphasising persecution of Academician Levich, Professors Lerner, Fein etc and banning of Scientific Symposium.

(4)          Individual visits- by e.g. Parliamentarians, churchmen or tourists, with access to influential Russians.

(5)          Parliamentary protests – which may range from legislative attempts to tie trade to human rights issues (e.g. controversial attempt- USA); through motions, resolutions speeches, debates questions to Ministers, letters to Governments (released to press) etc. Individuals in immediate danger should be named – knowledge that harm to them will cause international outcry is their best (and frequently only) protection.

(6)          Pressure through media – Parliamentarians have easier access to press, T.V. and radio than almost anyone else. Every opportunity should be taken to introduce campaign.

(7)          Public demonstrations- Parliamentarians (well known figures) may spearhead campaigns by others e.g. by speaking at or chairing meetings; leading marches or protests; accompanying delegations to Soviet Ambassador or visitors.

(8)          Direct approaches to Soviet Authorities

(a)          At home- through private contacts with Soviet Ambassador and/or his staff; at diplomatic parties; through parliamentary Soviet friendship groups

(b)          Through official delegation to Soviet Ambassador etc Parliamentary or mixed or through an attempt to arrange such delegations

(c)           Within Soviet Union – cables, letters , telephone calls etc- to both top and local officials, No reply likely but reactions sometimes dramatic.

(7) Demonstrations with Parliament – sometimes possible to dramatize plight of Soviet Jews e.g., “Prisoners” luncheon – with press; Slepak prayer book; exhibitions.

(8) Personal contact with Refusniks

(1) By telephone. If lines cut off parliamentary/governmental protests should follow.

(2) Letters- sometimes arrive but intercepted by censors, nevertheless inform authorities of parliamentary concern.

(3) Visits-all parliamentarians who visit Soviet Union should be asked to see “Refusniks” either at their homes or visitor’s Hotel.

(9) Co-operative efforts- inter-parliamentary – coordinated efforts on behalf of indivudals (e.g. Dr Stern) and or on specific issues (e.g. education tax) have proved valuable but are too few. Could coordination through Parliamentary Soviet groups and/or activists not be extended? European parliamentary efforts (Per Ahlmark) have been notable but individual groups have had too little contact.

(10) Public relations – Parliamentarians best to explain the cause. And to answer counter-attacks to explain need for separation between Jewish movement to leave Soviet Union and dissident efforts to change regime within and to answer Soviet propaganda.”

Other useful documents for studying the efforts of the British government in the release of Soviet Jewry include notes on chairman’s reports from AGMs and correspondence regarding the threat posed to Israel’s status in the United Nations.

Notes from AGM of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry
Chairman’s Report [MS254/A980/1/2/30]

Stay tuned for our next blog post, which will focus on Charlie Knight and his research using MS314 Papers of Theodore Hirschberg, 1939-41.

200th anniversary of the Demerara Rebellion

This Friday marks the 200^th anniversary of the outbreak of the Demerara Rebellion on 18 August 1823.

This uprising lasted two days and involved approximately 13,000 enslaved people in the colony of Demerara-Essequibo (corresponding to modern-day Guyana). The rebellion resulted from poor treatment, a desire for freedom and false rumours of imminent emancipation, to be enacted by Parliament at Westminster. The rebellion was led by enslaved people including Quamina (aka Quamina Gladstone) a slave-carpenter and deacon, as well as Quamina’s son Jack Gladstone. The revolt was unsuccessful and ultimately led to hundreds of enslaved people being killed in the fighting with British forces, with 27 enslaved people executed by the British in its aftermath. Unlike other leaders of the rebellion, Jack Gladstone was not executed but sold and deported – this was considered a form of clemency – as Jack had prevented deaths amongst the white settlers and plantation owners by constraining the actions of the enslaved people that he led in rebellion. His father Quamina refused to surrender to the British and was shot and killed. Murray Street in Georgetown, the capital of Guyana, was initially named for the Governor of the colony at the time of the rebellion – Major General George Murray, but it was later renamed Quamina Street in his honour.

‘The Golden Arrowhead’ – the national flag of Guyana since 1966

The rebellion took place after the abolition of the slave trade (i.e. the buying and selling of humans) in the British Empire from 1807 but before the abolition of the institution of slavery itself (i.e. the continued ownership of enslaved people) after 1833. In this context, it is understandable that expectations of freedom amongst enslaved people were high and the rebellion acted as a further impetus for total abolition.

The Wellington Papers at the University of Southampton’s Special Collections include a number of letters relating to Demerara.

At this time Wellington was the Master-General of the Ordnance (MGO) – a very senior British military position responsible for all British artillery, engineers, fortifications, military supplies, transport, field hospitals and much else.

We are given one particular view of the rebellion in a letter sent to the first Duke of Wellington by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Felix Smith of the Royal Engineers, commanding Engineer in the West Indies, dated 17 September 1823. Smith claims intimate knowledge of the political situation in the West Indies, having served in the region for many years, but also due to his extensive contacts with governors and other officials. Interestingly, Smith claims that he warned of simmering tensions one month prior to the rebellion, warnings that ultimately went unheeded, in a letter that had been seen by Major General George Murray, Governor of Demerara. In Smith’s view local officials were predisposed to pass on information that suited their political masters, rather than a truer picture: “many persons, who are capable of judging, have rather communicated that which they considered would be acceptable, than that which is true.”

Smith claims that only Antigua and Barbados have sufficient numbers of British troops to be able to cope with another similarly well-executed slave rebellion. He goes on to blame ‘Methodist Missionaries and other malcontents’ for the present state of ferment in the West Indies. This seems a rather short-sighted view, given that it was growing moral revulsion at the institution of slavery itself, both within Parliament and amongst the British public, that lent legitimacy and encouragement to the agitations of the Methodists and other anti-slavery forces. But perhaps Smith, reporting to his political superior in the form of Wellington, only reported what he considered acceptable, rather than what was true.

A few months after the rebellion broke out, on 21 November 1823, Parliament debated a resolution at a meeting of the standing committee of West India Planters and Merchants. This resolution describes a “formidable insurrection”, the “progress of which was fortunately stopped soon after its commencement, but not without a considerable sacrifice of lives and property.”

‘Lives and property’ in this context could of course refer to the same thing – enslaved humans treated as personal property!

The document goes on to list two facts it feels pertinent: “[…] first, that the claims advanced by the insurgents were nothing less than immediate emancipation – and secondly – that they did not even put forward the pretext of oppression or ill treatment on the part of their masters.”

It sounds strange to modern ears to hear that, in order for slaves to have any moral legitimacy in seeking their own freedom, they would first need to demonstrate that they were, in fact, oppressed. To be enslaved is to be oppressed. The document goes on to argue the case for compensation to be paid to planters, should slaves eventually be emancipated. Contemporaneous to these discussions in Parliament emotions were also running high amongst the general public in Southampton, as shown by debates held on the morality of slavery and the conditions of enslaved people in the West Indies, recorded in our Cope Handbills.

Cope Handbills, Vol. 2, No.77 [RBCSOU06Handbills2]

“To the inhabitants of Southampton. From the contents of a handbill, which has been industriously circulated amongst you, purporting to be the result of a meeting, called “to consider the propriety of supporting His Majesty’s government in the execution of the cautious, moderate, and gradual measures, proposed by Mr. H. Canning in the last session of parliament, for meliorating the condition of the slaves in the West Indies,” – such of you as were not present, will doubtless be led to suppose that the matter was fully and fairly discussed… it was in fact a scene of shameful tumult: interested persons, inimical to the object of the meeting being present, who came resolved to prevent all fair discussion, and with a high hand to carry things in their own way, by the influence of wealth, clamour, and abuse? … a gentleman present declared to the meeting… that the wretched “Slaves in the West Indies are in a far better condition than many of the lower orders of people in this country!” … such a declaration – so degrading to humanity – so humiliating to Englishmen – was hailed by a number of persons with loud acclamation… and that ministers of religion could so far forget themselves as to join the cause of oppression… no opportunity was given to others who were present to repel this monstrous assertion… I will not condescend to argue the question as I might on the ground of comparative feeding, and clothing, and lodging, and medical attendance. Are these the only claims – are these the chief privileges of a rational and immortal being? Is the consciousness of personal independence nothing? …is Christianity so little esteemed among us… An inhabitant.”

Cope Handbills, Vol. 2, No.77 [RBCSOU06Handbills2]

Meanwhile, Wellington had been in correspondence with Henry Bathurst, third Earl Bathurst, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, on plans to send re-enforcements to the West Indies in case of further outbreaks of rebellion, as in this letter from Bathurst to Wellington dated 12 October, 1823:

“In consequence of the account which I have received of the insurrection at Demerara from Sir Henry Warde, and of his impossibility of sending from Barbados any re-enforcement, it appears necessary to send some from here. But Sir Herbert Taylor has at the same time written me word that there is no disposable force here, unless we draw upon Ireland, which in its present state I conceive to be impossible. I have therefore written to Sir Herbert to suggest the calling out some of the veterans, by which means I hope that two regiments at least may be released and made fit for duty, so as to be sent off with all expedition, for though I flatter myself that the insurrection in Demerara will have been suppressed, the facility with which the insurgents can retire into the interior where we cannot follow them will leave that colony long, I am afraid, in an unsettled state, and the alarm will be so general in all the islands, where the force is certainly barely sufficient for common duties, that I am persuaded two regiments are the least which ought to be sent. I have written to this effect to Lord Liverpool, as an increase of the establishment cannot of course be made without his previous sanction. If anything more effectual and as expeditious should occur to you for the re-enforcement, I shall be obliged to you to let me know.”

Letter from Lord Bathurst to Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, about sending troops to Demerara to put down an insurrection, 12 October 1823 [MS61/WP1/773/8]

It would appear that British soldiers were stretched too thin, busy as they were in deterring the possibility of insurrection from others yearning for freedom in Ireland and elsewhere in the empire. Wellington replied to Bathurst on 14 October 1823:

“I received your note [WP1/773/8] yesterday as I passed through town from Windsor and I found the Duke of York here and have spoken to him on the subject of it and have seen his returns.

It is obvious that nothing can be taken from England. The Duke says that one battalion can be taken from Ireland by postponing the relief of a battalion at Gibraltar, and sending to the West Indies the battalion destined for this relief. But there is then an end to all reliefs.

We ought really to look at our situation and our difficulties seriously.

I don’t know whether you have ever read the history of the Maroon war. If you have, you will see that this insurrection at Demerara is the most serious event, in relation to our military force, that has occurred for a great length of time. If the Maroons had been at Demerara instead of in the island of Jamaica, that rebellion would never have been got the better of, and I see no reason why the insurrection at Demerara should then obscure the consequences of the continued successful insurrection of the negroes at Demerara upon the other colonies, considering the temper in which the question of emancipation has avowedly put all the negroes.

We ought to look then at the necessity of re-enforcing permanently the garrisons in the colonies and of having there a small reserve to enable the commanding officer there to act vigorously at once upon the occurrence of any revolt or insurrection. In providing for this emergency we ought likewise to provide for others, and to have some battalions, say two or three, to carry on the reliefs. I don’t think the battalions of infantry could well be on an establishment than that on which they are. But more are wanting to perform the general service of the country.

His Royal Highness tells me that the Irish government are not satisfied with the veterans and that there is reason to suspect them. At best they are an inferior description of troops and not disposable, which is what is wanted at present, and the want will be felt more and more every day. It will take nearly as much time to raise them as to raise others, and as officers are now taken from the half pay to officer them, there is a considerable diminution of the saving which has been supposed to result from the employment of the veterans in preference to raising new battalions.”

Copy of a letter from Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, to Lord Bathurst, discussing the need to raise troops to send to Demerara, 14 October 1823: contemporary copy [MS61/WP1/774/8]

As we explored in an earlier blog-post, in the same year as the Demerara rebellion of 1823 a new society was formed: the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Improvement of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions, popularly known as the Anti-Slavery Society. It assured continued public interest in the cause in Britain, yet its establishment defined two contrasting approaches: ‘gradualism’, the Anti-Slavery Society’s aspiration, seeking an on-going amelioration of the position of the slaves, a stance criticised by those who believed this was in the interest of the plantation owners in the colonies; and ‘immediatism’, favoured by those who wanted an immediate end to slavery — a position which drew together the younger and more radical supporters of the cause, especially from the early 1830s. Through the 1820s, the British government put in place practical measures intended to improve the lot of enslaved people, such as limiting their working hours and the forms of punishments allowable, although planters often resisted these new measures. Progress could also be made through administrative measures; Orders in Council could direct local governors, where they had authority, to advance reform in colonies; elsewhere colonial legislatures might be encouraged to adopt measures that ameliorated the position of the slaves. The government of the first Duke of Wellington, 1828-30, made a number of direct contributions to this end. The Royal Navy might also be employed more effectively to enforce the ban on the slave trade.

The Jamaican House of Assembly and the West Indian planters overplayed their hand in failing to embrace the Orders in Council. In 1833 the British Parliament passed legislation to emancipate the slaves of the British West Indies (which came into force from 1 August 1834), and the Jamaica House of Assembly adopted the Act with considerable ill grace, rather than lose its share of the £20 million compensation that had been provided for slave owners. The institution of slavery was thereby abolished in the British West Indies, with compensation for slave owners — but not for slaves. Apprenticeship systems effectively delayed economic changes in the plantation systems. Further pressure, particularly from Daniel O’Connell and Joseph Sturge, brought apprenticeship to an end in 1838.

In addition to the Wellington Papers, Special Collections is also home to the Oates Collection, which contains over 220 books and pamphlets on the West Indies and the abolition of slavery, dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Illustration from Album of the Female Society for Birmingham, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Walsall and their Respective Neighbourhoods for the Relief of British Negro Slaves, Rare Books HT1163

Wellington 40: O is for Oxford

Continuing with our Wellington A-Z series, this week we focus on ‘O for Oxford’. The first Duke of Wellington was, from 1834 until his death in 1852, Chancellor of the University of Oxford. His records as Chancellor of the University of Oxford can be found under MS61/WP2/244-56.

Wellington was initially reluctant to be nominated for the Chancellorship of Oxford. In a letter he wrote to Lord Bathurst dated 28^th November 1833 he explained his position:

“Some time ago Lord Sidmouth communicated to me the desire of the conservative party of the University of Oxford that I should be their Chancellor.

I answered that I had not received an University education; that I knew no more of Greek or Latin than an Eton Boy in the remove; that these facts were perfectly well known and that I must be considered uncapable and unfit.

I earnestly recommended to them to think of others; and I named the Duke of Beaufort, yourself [Lord Bathurst], Lord Mansfield, and Sidmouth and Lord Talbot.”

Letter from Wellington to Lord Bathurst, 28 Nov 1833, MS61/WP2/244/1

For a brief period, other candidates for the chancellorship appear to have been seriously entertained, but as Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Harding wrote in a letter to Wellington dated 30^th November 1833, the political prestige of the Duke of Wellington and his sympathy for the conservative cause would probably prove too powerful for the Oxford Colleges to resist:

“[…] I think the result of an application from the University will end in their forcing their Honors upon you in spite of your reluctance – and as their feeling on your part is known to be most sincere and not liable to any insinuations of secret management, I hope as a matter of personal gratification to myself, that to your military and political services, we may be able to add that of Defender of the Protestant Establishment […]”

Letter from Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Harding to Wellington, 30 Nov 1833, MS61/WP2/244/5

By December of 1833 various Colleges had dropped their support for Lord Talbot and coalesced in favour of Wellington.

Wellington was informed of his unanimous election to the Chancellorship in a letter dated 29^th January 1834 from Dr. G. Rowley, Vice Chancellor of Oxford:

“I have the honor to announce that the Election of a Chancellor of their University, in the room of Lord Grenville deceased, has just terminated, and that the choice of these electors has unanimously fallen upon your Grace.”

Letter from Dr. G. Rowley to Wellington, 29 Jan 1834, MS61/WP2/244/53

A detail of an illustration of Oxford by J. Greig from A history of the colleges, halls, and public buildings, attached to the University of Oxford, including the lives of the founders by Alexander Chalmers with illustrations by James Storer and John Greig, printed by Collingwood & Co., 1810, Vol.1
Rare Books LF 511

The ceremony of installation for Wellington as Chancellor took place at Apsley House, Wellington’s home, on 7th February 1834 and the plan of proceedings for the ceremony were described in a letter written by the Reverend Thomas Wintle to Wellington from the Committee Room of St. John’s College, Oxford.

Wellington’s unsuitability for the Chancellorship of Oxford was not lost on satirical cartoonists, who contrasted his martial accomplishments with his lack of academic eminence, when they depicted him as a ‘Doctor of Cannon Law’ rather than of ‘Canon Law’, as can be seen in this print held by the British Museum.

Illustration of the iconic Radcliffe Library from The new Oxford guide, or, Companion through the university by ‘A Gentleman of Oxford’, printed by J. Grosvenor and W. Hall, 1817
Rare Books LF518

The political background of Wellington’s chancellorship was the conservative struggle to resist opening-up Oxford and Cambridge Universities to non-conformists and defending the privileged position of the Anglican Church. In the early nineteenth century most of the Colleges at Oxford were religious foundations; in order to teach here, one usually had to be ordained in the Church of England. Upon matriculation one was expected to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, establishing the doctrines of the Church of England. There had been unsuccessful attempts from non-conformists since the 1770s to break down these barriers to entry, but it was amidst the general spirit of reform that had delivered Catholic emancipation, as well as the Great Reform Act of 1832, that in March 1834 a petition adopted by over sixty senior resident members of Cambridge University was presented to both the Lords and the Commons. The language of this petition was comparatively moderate and paid lip-service to the idea of an established religion of the country, although seeking to end its exclusive monopoly at Oxford and Cambridge. Many at Cambridge, including some liberal Anglicans, were motivated by a desire to ensure that their university continued to move with the times, to adopt a more modern or scientific outlook to teaching as was developing in Germany, and to be able to compete with emerging institutions such as the University of London, where religious tests were not required. It was the religious Dissenter George Wood MP however, who introduced a Bill inspired by the petition, calling for Dissenters to be allowed first degrees at Oxford and Cambridge. Many Dissenters were agitating for reform because in order to flourish in the professions of law or medicine, they required a university degree; Oxford and Cambridge were off-limits due to the religious tests and so they were forced to study in Scotland, Ireland or on the Continent. There was a more radical contingent of Dissenters who disliked the notion of religious subscription altogether, as part of a broader campaign against an established state church.

On the other side of the aisle, many argued that religious tests were appropriate at Oxford and Cambridge, given that education and religion were so strongly intertwined in the early nineteenth century, as Robert Peel MP argued in a House of Commons debate held on 26^th March 1834:

“If you intend to compel the Dissenter to observe the religious discipline of the University, you are cheating him by the semblance of a privilege of which he cannot avail himself; if, on the other hand, you waive the religious discipline, out of deference to his scruples, you divest the Universities of their present character, as schools of religious instruction, and sever the strongest of all the links which connect the Church of England with the State.”

Hansard, House of Commons debate held 26th March 1834, Column 712

Wellington echoed these sentiments, adding that the Bill to reform Oxford and Cambridge amounted to an attack on private property and corporations protected by charter, when he spoke in Parliament on 1^st August 1834 he argued that Oxford and Cambridge:

“[…] were founded for certain objects and upon certain principles; that their object was to educate persons for the Church of England and in the principles of the Church of England; that if any abuses existed in them, it might be safely left to themselves to detect and to correct them; that the leading principle of those institutions was the maintenance of the religion of the country, and the instruction of the country in the doctrines of the Church of England […]”.

Hansard, House of Commons debate held 1st August 1834, Column 833

The Duke of Wellington, as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, played a key role in resisting these proposed changes and his papers from the spring and summer of 1834 include numerous petitions arguing against allowing Dissenters into the University, sent to Wellington by Oxford alumni and clergy from around the country. The sentiment that the Bill to remove the subscription of religious tests from Oxford was essentially an overreach of government is also found in one of the many political pamphlets sent to Wellington:

“Dear Sir, Since my former letter was written, conversations have been reported in the two houses of Parliament, and in other places, from which it seems probable that the Ministry do not contemplate any attempt to enforce the admission of Dissenters into this University. It is in fact, evident that such an object is beyond their power. It rests with the University, and the several Colleges contained in it, to exclude whomsoever we chose, until some legislative interference compel an entire surrender of our present privileges […] And whether the compulsion come from a single monarch, or a popular assembly, the tyranny is still the same.”

Rare Books, Wellington Pamphlet 1173/5: ‘A second letter to a Dissenter on the opposition of the University of Oxford to the Charter of the London College’ by the Rev. W. Sewell, MA – Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford, 1834

dav

In a letter dated 2^nd May 1834, Wellington replies to W. Ward, indicating that he will introduce a petition against the Bill to open-up the Universities at the appropriate time:

“I am very sorry that I was not at home when you did me the favour of calling yesterday. The orders of the House of Lords prevent the presentation of a petition against a Bill which is under discussion in the House of Commons. But if the Bill for the admission of Dissenters to degrees in the Universities should come under discussion in the House of Lords I will present the petition of the Bachelors of Arts and Undergraduates with great satisfaction […]”

Letter from Wellington to W. Ward, 2 May 1834, MS61/WP2/245/1

This 1834 Bill was ultimately defeated in the Lords and it was not until the Oxford University Act 1854 (passed two years after Wellington’s death) that those outside the Anglican Church could enter the University as students for Bachelors’ Degrees. On 22^nd June 1854, when James Heywood MP introduced the 1854 Bill to Parliament, he claimed that Wellington had actually been in favour of Oxford adopting a less strict system and emulating the system in place at Cambridge:

“ […] it should not be necessary for any person, upon matriculation at the University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration or take any oath except the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration. The object of this clause was to place the University of Oxford on the same footing as that of Cambridge. At Oxford students were at the time of matriculation expected to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, and take the oath of supremacy, this being, he believed, the only University where any such ceremony had to be gone through at the time of matriculation. The present system at Oxford was not beneficial to the University, for it prevented parents sending their sons there. Nor was it very beneficial to the young men, for very few of them, he believed, had ever read the Thirty-nine Articles, some of which were very difficult to be understood, and they generally, therefore, subscribed them in ignorance, or without sufficient consideration. The subject was not a new one, for it had been brought before Parliament in 1772, when a petition was presented from a large number of clergymen on the subject of an alteration in clerical oaths, and in 1834 the late Mr. Alderman Wood brought in a Bill for the abolition of matriculation and degree oaths in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which passed this House by a large majority, but was lost in the other House. The practical result of the defeat of this Bill was the establishment of the University of London, but, notwithstanding the success of that great institution, the Dissenters still considered they had a right to send their sons to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge if they pleased. The Duke of Wellington, when Chancellor of Oxford University, endeavoured to persuade the University to consent to some alterations in these oaths, proposing that the Thirty-nine Articles should be laid aside, and that all students should be required to subscribe themselves members of the Established Church. The Hebdomadal Board laid the proposition before Convocation, which, however, rejected it.”

Hansard, House of Commons debate held 22 June 1854, Column 512

It was not until the Universities Tests Act 1871 that religious tests were fully abolished, allowing Roman Catholics, nonconformist Protestants and non-Christians to take up professorships, fellowships, studentships and other lay offices at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. It also forbade religious tests for any degree (other than a degree in divinity).

Please be patient in awaiting our final blog in the W-E-L-L-I-N-G-T-O-N series, which will focus on N for Napoleon!

Wellington 40: E is for Elections

This week, we are on the letter E of Wellington, and for this we are going to focus on elections.

The Wellington Papers hold a variety of papers in relation to elections, such as poll results, updates on the state of general elections, and congratulatory letters on general election progress like the one below. We will begin this blog by taking you through Wellington’s elections journey as a political figure, and will then discuss the types of sources we hold on elections within the Wellington Papers.

Letter from the Duke of Rutland to Wellington congratulating him on the progress of the general election, 2 Jul 1841 [MS61/WP2/77/63]

As a result of Wellington’s political positions as Chief Secretary of Ireland, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Foreign Secretary under Robert Peel, minister without portfolio, and Tory Leader in the House of Lords, Wellington had seen significant election events take place, such as the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, opposition to the Reform Bill in the 1830s, and elections that signified the last flicker of Wellington’s previous unpopularity.

Wellington becomes an MP

Shortly before the 1789 general election, Wellington was set on his first political task. He was asked to make a political speech in support of Henry Grattan to avoid him being made a freeman. Following the election of 30 April 1790, Wellington was duly elected, even though he was underage at the time. He spoke in parliament sending the address from the throne, criticising the imprisonment of Louis XVI and the French Invasion of the Netherlands and congratulating the government on its liberal attitude to Catholics. He continued to represent the constituency until 1797 when he left to go to India.

In 1807 Wellington found himself elected as MP for Mitchell in Cornwall, Newport on the Isle of Wight and for Tralee in County Kerry. He chose Newport. Concurrently he was appointed as Chief Secretary for Ireland by the Duke of Portland and worked with Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond, who was the Lord-Lieutenant.

Wellington becomes Prime Minister

After Lord Liverpool became seriously ill in 1827; Canning’s death; and Goderich being forced to resign after, amongst many disasters, the failing to steer reform of the Corn Laws through the Lords in the face of opposition; Wellington was invited to form a government in January 1828. This invitation by King George IV was accompanied by the strict instruction that Catholic emancipation be excluded from his programme. Given that Daniel O’Connell, founder of the Catholic Association, was inevitably going to stand for election, and that Ireland was on the brink of war, Wellington had no choice but to guide the emancipation bill into the Commons with Home Secretary, Robert Peel. The passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act on 13 April 1829 meant that Catholics were able to take a seat in the Parliament at Westminster, and that Daniel O’Connell, who had won the by-election in Clare in 1828, was now able to take his seat as MP. Wellington had therefore helped create a monumental change in the elections process for Members of Parliament as Prime Minister.

Wellington’s opposition towards the 1832 Reform Bill

Despite changing his opinion on Catholic emancipation, Wellington’s views on the 1832 Reform Bill remained heavily opposed. This bill included significant changes to the electoral system of England and Wales, such as giving representation to cities and abolishing small districts; giving the vote to small landowners, shopkeepers, tenant farmers and householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more, and some lodgers.

Wellington reveals his thoughts on the 1832 Reform Bill in a letter to Ernest Augustus, first Duke of Cumberland, dated 24 September 1832 [MS61/WP1/1234/7]:

“I believe that from Scotland and Ireland principally, in proportion to the amount of representation, and from England, there will be on the whole so many radicals returned to the next Parliament as to render the government of the country nearly impracticable. This, and the enormous expense of the elections, which will very soon drive the [f.1v] gentry of the country out of Parliament, are the principal changes effected at present by the reform acts.”

Copy of a letter from Wellington to the Duke of Cumberland discussing the effect of the reform act on the parliamentary elections, 24 September 1832 [MS61/WP1/1234/7]

Wellington’s anti-reform position led to a high degree of personal and political unpopularity. The same year saw the Swing Riots, centred in many areas on the economic difficulties of agricultural labourers, with machine-breaking and rural unrest. The fictitious Captain Swing also expressed general discontent with the Wellington government and lack of progress with the popular cause of reform. The Wellington papers contain a series of letters attributed to Swing in which the Duke is threatened.

On 15 November 1830, Wellington was forced to resign after he was defeated in a motion of no confidence. He was replaced by Earl Grey, leading a Whig government, and continued to fight reform in opposition before finally consenting to the Great Reform Bill in 1832.

Although it took time for Wellington’s role in the resistance to the 1832 Act to be forgiven, in 1834 he was summoned by King William IV to form an administration. The government only last 23 days, but it contributed to the restoration of the Duke’s authority.

Elections correspondence

Perusing Wellington’s correspondence that relates to elections reveals how Wellington often received updates about the progress of general elections. In one letter from the Earl of Roden, Wellington is updated on the 1837 election results in Ireland, of which the Earl comments “our defeat in Belfast was very unexpected but I am told that we shall recover it by petition”.

Letter from Earl of Roden, Glenarm Castle to Wellington, commenting on election results in Ireland. 12 Aug 1837 [MS61/WP2/47/40]

Wellington even received details of polls in some cases:

State of polls for the 1830 general election as part of letter from J.Planta to Wellington, reporting on the general election, 12 August 1830 [MS61/WP1/1134/6]

Wellington also received letters from correspondents reassuring him that they would support his government, as well as proposals for schemes of voting, such as by proportional representation in Irish Municipal Elections:

“The object of my proposition is to secure to the municipal constituencies about to be formed in Ireland, a positive and certain means of preventing an exclusive election of the Town Council by one party. The mode by which I propose to do this, recommends itself by being a most liberal extension of the Franchise as it is at present proposed to be conceded. I propose to relieve them from the obligation of voting for so many persons [list of 12-16/20 candidates] and to confer upon them the privilege of distributing their 12 – 16 – or -20 votes to 6 – 3 – or 4 of the candidates – or all their votes to the candidate”

Letter from Lord Burghersh: a proposed scheme of voting by proportional representation in Irish Municipal Elections, n.d. [endorsed May 1840] [MS61/WP2/68/135-6]

Letter from Lord Burghersh: a proposed scheme of voting by proportional representation in Irish Municipal Elections, n.d. [endorsed May 1840] MS61/WP2/68/135

As well as sending lists of candidates for the Scottish representative peerage as one of his duties, Wellington was also requested to provide military assistance to address threats of violence in parliamentary elections:

“Mr. Hawthorne called on Major Swan and asked him why he came to town, or something to this effect. Swan said, not to interfere in the election, but to preserve peace. Mr. Hawthorne then said, did Swan intend to patrol the town with the military force ? Swan replied, by no means, unless outrages should require that interference, and that the force would then be used indiscriminately for public protection…On the whole, this appears to Croker the most dangerous bullying he ever saw, but it will fail with him. But he owns that he thinks the government should enquire into this circumstance, where a placeman dares to tell a magistrate, especially sent to preserve the peace, that he will call out the King’s volunteers against the King’s soldiers… He supposes that Major Swan will have written, but at all events he begs that either extraordinary powers or a troop of dragoons be immediately ordered to Swan…The violence of the disappointed and, he hopes, defeated party would surprise Wellesley”

Letter from J.W.Croker to Wellington, reporting the threat of violence in the parliamentary election in Downpatrick, and requesting military assistance, 18 May 1807 [MS61/WP1/168/5]

Letter from J.W.Croker to Wellington, reporting the threat of violence in the parliamentary election in Downpatrick, and requesting military assistance, 18 May 1807 [MS61/WP1/168/5]

Look out for next Wellington 40 blog post, where we will be on the first letter L in Wellington!

Politics in the 1950s: Suez and Mountbatten

This week’s 1950s-themed blogpost revisits the 1956 Suez Crisis, drawing on the records of Lord Louis Mountbatten, which are held in the archives here at the University of Southampton’s Special Collections.

The crisis began on 26^th July 1956 when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company – at that time a largely foreign-owned company whose shareholders were mostly British and French. Nasser’s decision to nationalise the dam was partly motivated by a desire for revenue, due to the high costs of funding construction of the Aswan High Dam. The Suez crisis took place in the context of Cold War rivalry between the Western bloc and the USSR and Nasser’s attempts to play a balancing act between them; Nasser’s earlier decision to recognise the communist People’s Republic of China angered the Americans and left an opening for the Soviet Union to provide weapons to Egypt as well as a loan for the Aswan High Dam project.

The Suez canal was, and still is, a major route for international shipping and much of Europe’s oil supplies passed through the Red Sea into the Mediterranean through the canal. The British, the French and the Israeli governments conspired to launch a military strike to seize the canal, re-open it to shipping and remove Nasser from power. Their military attack was launched in late October and early November of 1956. At first Britain and France called for a ceasefire between Egypt and Israel but it later transpired that this had been a rouse, designed in order to allow them to enter into the conflict. The Egyptians sunk more than 40 ships in the canal in order to render it impassable and the three aggressors faced heavy condemnation from the United States, the United Nations and the USSR for their invasion of Egypt and the fighting that had begun. Under such strong condemnation, the three powers withdrew from Egypt. Nasser survived and was strengthened by the crisis. The episode is regarded as a defining moment in British history, signalling the decline of Britain’s status as a major global power. The British Prime Minister who had decided to launch military action, Anthony Eden, lost the confidence of many in his own party due to the debacle and, amidst ill health, resigned as Prime Minister in January 1957. Nasser remained in office as President of Egypt until 1970.

In 1966 Lord Mountbatten accumulated together his various papers from the time of the crisis and also recorded his recollection of the events of Suez, from a distance of almost ten years. At the start of the crisis in July 1956, Mountbatten was at the heart of events as acting chairman of the Chiefs of Staff committee and also as First Sea Lord – the military leader of the Royal Navy. Mountbatten claimed to have warned those around him in government against military action by Britain, as it would undermine Britain’s global status, provoke instability in the Middle East, undermine the United Nations and create needless division in the Commonwealth. His antipathy towards the course of action taken under Eden and his later characterisation of events damaged his long-term friendship with Eden.

In his papers from 1966 he recollects the effect that the crisis had on him personally as well as the influence he had once enjoyed over his old friend Eden: “I do not believe I have ever been so embarrassed, distressed and put in such a painful position as I was during the 3 or 4 months that the Suez crisis lasted, from the 26^th July until well into November 1956. The Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, was one of my oldest and closest friends […] he started with a rather reactionary Tory outlook and gradually came round more to my point of view.” [MS62/MB1/N/106]

Reaction in Britain to Nasser’s nationalisation of the canal was fierce, with some even comparing Nasser to a Hitler or Mussolini and the historical spectre of appeasement was raised, amidst fears that Nasser would dominate the Arab world unless he were resisted. There were calls for restraint, however, and many observers emphasised that military action should only be sanctioned with UN approval.

Mountbatten relates a telephone conversation between Eden and himself made on 31^st July 1956 wherein he “[…] used every possible opportunity to try and indicate how much I disapproved of what he was doing and he soon realised my disapproval. Nothing, however, I could do could shake his policy nor apparently shake his friendship for me.” [MS62/MB1/N/106]

 Mountbatten then describes how he tried to write a formal letter to the Prime Minister outlining his dissent, but this was blocked by others in government on constitutional grounds, as it was deemed improper for an officer to meddle so explicitly in political matters. In a draft of the personal letter that he apparently wrote for Eden on 1^st August 1956, which according to Mountbatten was vetoed and thus never sent, he asks to be forgiven for speaking frankly and ‘letting his hair down’: “I feel very strongly that the absolutely paramount consideration is the marshalling of world opinion on our side. We have six weeks in which to do this – so has Nasser […] we should apply economic sanctions and pressure in the ways best calculated to goad him into further high-handed actions, which would antagonise the world at large, and also British opinion […] It seems to me that the surest way to enlist support for our cause is to offer terms to Nasser which it would be patently unreasonable and provocative for him to reject […] it should be clear to everyone that we are not aiming primarily at re-asserting ourselves in Egypt, but at securing the greatest benefit for all other potential users of the canal as well.” Mountbatten adds that the marshalling of world opinion on the British side through reasonable negotiations is paramount, in order to avoid being seen as ‘imperialistic’ by the Americans, the Soviets or the world at large.

Draft of a letter from Mountbatten to Eden on Suez, 1 Aug 1956 [MS62/MB1/N/106]

Between the nationalisation of the canal in late July and the launching of military action in October, there were indeed attempts to negotiate a settlement; with the UK, France and the US supporting the notion of a canal under international operation, whilst other nations approved only of international supervision of the canal under Egyptian control. These negotiations were ultimately fruitless, however, as Nasser rejected notions of joint control as a violation of Egyptian sovereignty.

All the while that negotiations were ongoing, military preparations were being made by the British, French and Israelis. In a memo of 27^th July 1956 on a cabinet meeting sent to the First Sea Lord and others, it was noted that “The Prime Minister stated that his object was to get rid of Colonel Nasser personally and his regime whom he regarded as the principal enemies.” A range of military preparations are also revealed in this memo at the very earliest stage of the crisis, including the reinforcement of the Mediterranean; Royal Marine Commandos to be relieved from Cyprus so that they can be embarked in an amphibious warfare squadron, and “as regards the Al Fateh [an Egyptian ship] anything that can be done with the builders at Southampton to ensure delay should be done on a very secret and personal basis”. [MS62/MB1/N/107]

In late 1956, as the British Assault Convoy was mobilising and preparing to head to Egypt, Mountbatten tendered his resignation, asking for an ultimatum on whether he should remain as First Sea Lord or go, only to be told he was to stay in post. 

As First Sea Lord Mountbatten was kept busy throughout the latter half of 1956 with these military plans and preparations but he still took the time to write to a woman, possibly the wife of a sailor disgruntled at his loss of shore leave or the like, when he wrote on 27^th September 1956: “I am always glad to hear what the feelings of our sailors in every part of the world are and appreciate the spirit in which your letter was written. I feel sure, however, that you will not have overlooked the object of joining the Royal Navy is to serve one’s country in time of trouble. However carefully our programme of reliefs and cruises is worked out in normal times when there is no tension, when the Government orders precautionary measures all such programmes must be scrapped, and ships must be stationed where they are required.  I should be sorry indeed to think that the spirit of our sailors had sunk so low as to put personal comfort and plans before the primary duty of the Navy in times of stress.” [MS62/MB1/N/107]

As these military preparations were underway the government and military commanders were also attempting to deal with enquiries from the press. In a memo sent to the First Sea Lord dated 3^rd August 1956, we learn that the Prime Minister made it clear in a ministerial meeting that press releases were not to be released by the War Office or the military. When it was made known that ships could not be brought forward or loaded or sailed or even have their refit accelerated without it becoming common knowledge to civilians, Eden’s own press information officer concurred and stated that some information would have to be supplied to the press, in order to prevent rumours and stories getting out of hand. The Prime Minister conceded that he would “see all editors this morning and appeal to them to withhold operational news” and would consider resuscitating the ‘D’ notice procedure, whereby the government requests that the press not publish stories that may have a detrimental effect on national security. [MS62/MB1/N/107]

Before the invasion was launched Mountbatten was raising pertinent questions on military plans for the post-invasion period. In the minutes of a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff held on Tuesday, 14^th August 1956, Mountbatten asked the following questions: “Lord Mountbatten raised the question of what steps were being taken to ensure that in the event of successful operations against Egypt and the downfall of the present Government [Nasser’s, not Eden’s], a new Government could be formed which would not only support our policy for the operation of the Canal but which would also have the support of the Egyptian people. He feared the Egyptian people were so solidly behind Nasser that it might be impossible to find such a Government […] Lord Mountbatten said that he felt there was a very real danger that Operation Musketeer would cause serious and continuing disorders in the Middle East countries and necessitate the long term retention of considerable forces in the area to maintain law and order.” [MS62/MB1/N/106]

Mountbatten’s worries were not heeded by the British government under Eden, however, and on 31^st October 1956 British and French forces began a bombing campaign and troops were subsequently launched into Egypt. Despite his political objections, Mountbatten continued to conduct his military duties, as shown in his correspondence.

The reaction in Britain to this surprise invasion was hotly divided, with arguments in parliament and on BBC television programming almost resulting in fisticuffs. The anger felt in July in Britain at Nasser’s unexpected nationalisation of the canal had subsided somewhat by the autumn. Facing huge pressure from the United States and world opinion at large Eden was persuaded to call a ceasefire on 6^th November 1956, with British troops still in Port Said and the canal within reach. The Anglo-French occupiers were to begin their withdrawal from Egypt, to be completed by 22^nd December 1956. In a letter dated 12^th November 1956 addressed to the Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, Mountbatten supports the suggestion that the Suez Canal Company Engineers should be brought in to advise on clearing the canal under the auspices of the United Nations [after Egypt had blocked it by sinking ships] and he comments on the military operation in Egypt: “From a military point of view the operation could not have gone better and the major share of everything was really done by the Navy, for the Royal Marines were the assault troops and virtually the whole of the ground support and ground attack was done by the Fleet Air Arm. I was particularly pleased that we have at last been able to get over the landing of marines by helicopter which I have long wanted to do.”

Letter addressed to the Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope from Mountbatten, 12th Nov 1956 [MS62/MB1/N/107]

In a memo dated 23^rd November 1956 concerns are raised about ‘bad behaviour’ among the para-troops and amongst troops at Port Said. Reports of looting by commandos and attacks on Egyptian civilians are considered. Some historians estimate that 1,000 Egyptian civilians died as a result of the invasion. Mountbatten’s papers also include letters of thanks issued to the various naval officers who participated in the invasion, after having returned to the UK in December 1956. There are also some letters discussing promotions and a lot of ‘patting-on-the-back’ between service members for the military operation.

Mountbatten’s framing of events was contested by others who were in government at the time and it provoked a bitter controversy with Eden himself, who lived until 1977. Dr Adrian Smith of the University of Southampton, utilising the archives in Special Collections, explored Mountbatten’s role in the Suez crisis and his subsequent recollection of events in his 2012 paper titled ‘Rewriting history?  Admiral Lord Mountbatten’s efforts to distance himself from the 1956 Suez crisis’.

Smith claims that, although “The need for ultimate vindication demanded a necessary distortion of the narrative, as Lord Hailsham pointed out after the great man’s death. The irony is that Mountbatten had no need to rewrite history in that his opposition to military intervention was largely vindicated […] Yet to enjoy quiet satisfaction in being proved right was never an option – as with every other aspect of Dickie Mountbatten’s career, he had to be seen to be right.”

Today, the Suez Canal Authority, an Egyptian state-owned authority, owns, operates and maintains the Suez Canal.

Ireland in Print

Special Collections at the University of Southampton holds rich resources for the study of the political, social and cultural history of Ireland. There are substantial collections of manuscript papers relating to the Irish estates of the Temple and Parnell families, particularly in Sligo and Dublin (MS 62 Broadlands Archives and MS 64 Congleton Manuscripts); and much political material in the papers of the first Duke of Wellington (MS 61). The papers of the Earls of Mornington (MS 226, MS 299), and the papers of the family of Richard Wellesley, first Marquis Wellesley (MS 63 Carver Manuscripts) also contain complementary material on estate management.

Mullagmore, County Sligo. Copy of a plan by Mr Nimmo, January 1825 (MS 62 Broadlands Archives BR139/8)

There are also many printed resources relating to Ireland in Special Collections which may be less well-known. The following examples demonstrate the range of material available:

The History and Antiquities of Ireland by Walter Harris Dublin (1764) Rare Books DA 920

The Rare Books sequence in Special Collections extends to approximately 4,000 items, ranging in date from the late 15th century to the 20th century. A number of these books were published in Ireland, or provide an insight into Irish history. The title page, above, is from The History and Antiquities of Ireland, Illustrated with Cuts of Ancient Medals, Urns, &c..: With the History of the Writers of Ireland… Written in Latin by Sir James Ware; Newly Translated into English, Revised and Improved… And Continued Down to the Beginning of the Present Century, by Walter Harris, Dublin (1764) Rare Books DA 920.

Irish matters were strongly reflected in the political, social, and economic questions facing Great Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Wellington Pamphlets, which were presented to the first Duke of Wellington by authors and interested individuals, are a valuable source for contemporary views. They date from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century and number more than 3,000 items. Hundreds of these pamphlets relate to Ireland: and they cover a wealth of topics, from agriculture, drainage, and land improvements; to the condition of the Catholic and Protestant churches; Catholic Emancipation; harbours, trade, and industry; schools and education; distress, emigration, dissent and rebellion; reform; elections; government and law; poor law, poor rates and relief; medical relief and reform; and public health – to name a few.

Royal Dublin Society, Report from the Committee of Agriculture and Planting, 1 March 1832 (Rare Books Wellington Pamphlet 963/9 pp.4-5)

This plan of a model cottage is taken from the Royal Dublin Society Report from the Committee of Agriculture and Planting, 1 March 1832 (Rare Books Wellington Pamphlet 963/9 pp.4-5). The report notes:

“It may assist such landed proprietors as are desirous of providing comfortable habitations for their tenants and cottagers, to refer them to the annexed plan of a cottage (which may be enlarged or reduced as circumstances may require)…the system of allotting small portions of land to the cottages of labourers is making considerable progress in England with a view of diminishing the burthen of the poor rates”

The Potatoe Plant, Its Uses and Properties: Together with the Cause of the Present Malady.. by Alfred Smee F.R.S., London (1846) Rare Books Perkins SB 211.P8

Walter Frank Perkins (1865-1946) gifted the Perkins Agricultural Library of books on agriculture, botany and forestry to the University College of Southampton, and published the bibliography British and Irish Writers On Agriculture in 1929.  His collection of some 2,000 books and 40 periodicals, ranges in date from the 17th century to the late 19th century. It includes varied works on the condition of Ireland and Irish farming, for example, on the cultivation of crops such as potatoes, flax, and grasses; concerning Irish peat and turf bogs; Irish manufactures; population; and poor houses.  Above is the frontispiece to Alfred Smee’s The Potatoe Plant, Its Uses and Properties: Together with the Cause of the Present Malady.. London (1846) Rare Books Perkins SB 211.P8.

‘Railway Map of Ireland and England’, W.H.Lizars, Edinburgh, March 1863, (MS 64/557/1)

Other interesting printed material relating to Ireland can be found in our manuscript collections, such as this printed map of Ireland, dated 1863, part of the Congleton Manuscripts (MS 64/557/1).

Irish political periodicals feature in the papers of Evelyn Ashley, M.P. (1836-1907) as part of the Broadlands Archives (MS 62 BR61; BR148/12). Evelyn succeeded to Lord Palmerston’s estates at Broadlands and Romsey in Hampshire, and Classiebawn, County Sligo, in 1888.  A Liberal M.P., he was defeated in the election for the Isle of Wight in 1885, and joined the Liberal Unionists when Gladstone announced his adoption of the principle of Home Rule in 1886. He unsuccessfully fought seats in a number of later elections and retained a close interest in politics until his death in 1907.

Papers of Evelyn Ashley, (MS 62 Broadlands Archives BR 61) including Notes from Ireland…; The Liberal Unionist; and Home Rule Bill, c.1893

Evelyn’s personal copies of these periodicals are an interesting source for the political questions of the 1880s and 90s. Notes from Ireland “A Record of the Sayings and Doings of the Parnellite Party in the Furtherance of their “Separatist” Policy for Ireland; and of Facts Connected with the Country. For the Information of the Imperial Parliament, the Press, and Public Generally”, survives for the years 1886-1891 (MS 62 Broadlands Archives BR 61/3/4, BR148/12). The newssheet had been established in 1886 and was published by the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union. Evelyn’s copies of The Liberal Unionist survive for the years 1887-1892 (BR61/3/6). The other item pictured here is a printed version of the (second)Home Rule Bill, dating from c.1893.

For details of our related manuscript sources for Ireland see our online guide: Sources about Ireland: Information Sheet.

The Suez Crisis of 1956

The Suez Crisis began on 29 October 1956 when Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. The invasion took place in response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s announcement in July 1956 of the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company and the closure of the canal to all Israeli shipping.

The Suez Canal Company was a joint British-French enterprise which had owned and operated the canal since its construction in 1869. The canal, an important maritime route connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, represented the main source of supply of oil for Britain and France. During the post-war period there had been an upsurge of nationalism in Egypt and, in the lead up to the crisis, there was mounting opposition to the political influence of European powers in the region.

Embed from Getty Images

On 30 October, the day after the initial invasion by Israeli forces, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum for an end to hostilities. The ultimatum was rejected by Nassar and a week later, on the night of 5-6 November, British and French troops joined the Israeli invasion and quickly succeeded in taking control of the area around the canal.

However, while the invasion was a military success, it was a political disaster. Not only was there widespread outrage in Britain, the invasion was condemned internationally. Opposition was particularly strong in the United States which saw the action as opening the possibility of Russian intervention in the Middle East. In response to mounting international pressure, British Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, was forced into calling a ceasefire on 7 November. A United Nations peacekeeping force was then sent in to supervise the ceasefire and to restore order following the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli troops.

Embed from Getty Images

Special Collections holds material relating to both the canal and the crisis. Prior to 1869, the construction of the canal had been long under consideration. Proposals can be found discussed among the papers of Henry John Temple, third Viscount Palmerston. In a letter from Lord Ponsonby, dated 26 March 1841, a scheme for cutting a canal across the Suez is outlined, as are the many serious political evils which may be a consequence of its execution. [MS 62 PP/ GC/PO/508] One of the key objections was the fear that the canal might interfere with Britain’s India trade. In the end, the British decided on an alternative railway connection linking Alexandria and Suez, via Cairo. The Suez Canal Company was later formed by French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps in 1858.

Memorandum from Sir G.C.Lewis, J.Campbell, Lord Argyll and Lord Granville, concerning the plans for a Suez canal, 23 January [1860] [MS 62 PP/GC/LE/124]

Lord Mountbatten was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet during the crisis. While he co-operated with preparations to send a naval force to the area, he protested against British military intervention, favouring psychological warfare and pressure from the United Nations. In a draft of a letter to Anthony Eden, dated 1 August 1956, Mountbatten strongly advises against the immediate use of force against Egypt, stressing that “the absolutely paramount consideration is the marshalling of world opinion on our side.” [MS 62 MB1/N106] The letter was vetoed by the First Lord and never sent.

The crisis had a fundamental impact on British politics: Britain’s prestige as a world power was dealt a severe blow, with Eden resigning from office on 9 January 1957.

The Cope Handbills

The Cope Handbills are a wonderfully rich collection of over three hundred items, over two large volumes, of political flyers, public notices, newspaper reports and other printed ephemera produced predominantly in Southampton. They cover a sixty year period, from the last quarter of the eighteenth century into the early years of the nineteenth.

Beginning with a newspaper report of November 1776 from the Hampshire Chronicle, relating the victory of King George III’s troops at New York, the items continue through to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars until the passage of the Great Reform Act of 1832, with a smaller number of items from the later years of the nineteenth century also.

The Handbills form part of the wider Cope Collection cared for by the Special Collections team at the Hartley Library. The Rev Sir William Cope (1811-92), twelfth Baronet, of Bramshill, Hampshire served in the Rifle Brigade before purchasing his discharge in 1839 to become ordained as a priest. He was a minor canon of Westminster Abbey from 1842 until 1852 and chaplain of Westminster Hospital from 1843 to 1851. In 1851 he succeeded to the baronetcy, and at Bramshill developed an interest in the local area, writing on matters of local interest, e.g. A Glossary of Hampshire Words and Phrases (1883) and establishing his ‘Hampshire Collection’. Cope died in 1892, having bequeathed the collection to the Hartley Institution, a forerunner of the University of Southampton. The handbills shine a light onto the momentous political and social developments of a world that was changing rapidly for Southampton’s inhabitants, bringing out the contrasting worldviews which informed the intellectual debates and shaped the larger developments that defined the era.

The increasing power of the state is evident in the notices on the new income tax, first introduced in 1799 (amidst ferocious opposition from some quarters), by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger as a temporary measure to fund the war with France; the Income Tax was the first tax in British history to be levied directly on people’s earnings. The War with France itself features prominently in the hand bills, with impassioned polemics both in favor of (Item 66, Vol. 1) and in opposition to (Item 60, Vol. 1) the prosecution of the war:

Item 66 (Vol. 1) – A call to arms supporting the war with France

Inside the volumes we find numerous campaign flyers which reveal the maneuverings and diatribes of local politicians on issues ranging from Catholic emancipation to slavery; these underscore how politics was becoming an increasingly visible concern for Sotonians. At the beginning of the era the political life of the town was largely dominated by the Corporation of Southampton, which vacillated between Tory and Whig influences and had the power to sway general elections and send MPs of its choosing to Westminster. MPs were usually country gentlemen from neighbouring counties and of recent commercial or professional success. It was also common, from the 1740s onwards, for MPs to hold West Indian connections or property; slavery becoming a burning issue for some Sotonians in the early 19th century. A petition favouring moderate reform of the slaves’ conditions to prepare them for ultimate emancipation was signed by 1,353 residents of Southampton and presented to Parliament in 1828. A few years earlier in January 1824 a petition to Parliament was requisitioned by William Chamberlayne MP, calling for the abolition of slavery altogether. It was widely supported in nonconformist circles but was strongly opposed by some Anglicans:

Item 77 (Vol. 2) – Anti-slavery polemic

But the handbills also allow us a glimpse into the more mundane realities of the everyday cultural lives of Sotonians. Alongside the items covering the more serious political and social issues of the day we find flyers for a range of entertainments including fencing demonstrations, scientific and educational lectures, musical performances and exhibitions of a ‘celebrated Irish Giant’ and a lady only thirty inches in stature of ‘lively wit and agreeable conversation’. We also see commercial advertisements for all manner of goods and services from fashionable dresses and hats to book-sales, lotteries, coach travel services to London and Bristol as well as dubious medicinal cures and treatments, including some for electrical therapy and ‘earth-bathing’:

Item 172 (Vol. 1) – Advertisement for a public demonstration of ‘earth-bathing’ by Doctor Graham

Intermixed with all these items we find: satirical cartoons; religious and moral tracts; notices of local voluntary militias and military procedures and rules; the bulletins of various reading, archery and dining clubs and public notices proscribing fireworks, rioting and the disruption of church services, as well as notices on everything from public improvements to bank robberies and poor relief.

Taken together, the handbills allow us to build a picture of how the lives of Sotonians changed between 1770 and 1830. By the time of the Great Reform Act of 1832, which was celebrated in Southampton by a festival (Item 141 – Vol. 1) and which had been championed by the Whig faction in Parliament, the era of social and political reform had truly come of age. In 1835 the Whigs also passed the Municipal Reform Act; this broke the power of many town corporations, including Southampton’s, which were deemed undemocratic, inept and unresponsive to the needs of the rapidly changing urban communities they served. Southampton’s corporation, whilst not as dire as those of other English towns, was nonetheless found by the government’s commission of enquiry to be inadequate: “…it is evident that the whole power of the Corporation is in the hands of a few persons…”[1] The Radical William Lankester, although admitting no malpractice on the part of the Southampton Corporation, did complain that the Corporation was apathetic towards improvement, citing a lack of the following: “a new jail should have been built, or a hospital endowed, or schools established, or an efficient police set up, or marshes and ditches drained.”[2]

The decline of the town corporation’s influence was concomitant with the rise of movements and new organisations in Southampton which sought to improve and reform almost everything before them. We see this very clearly in the items establishing new gas lighting for the town (Item 138, Vol. 1); new educational initiatives to improve the lot of the poor in the rapidly expanding suburb of St. Mary’s (Item 143, Vol. 1) and local petitions for the reform of capital punishment (Item 130, Vol. 1).

Simultaneous with this new drive for social and political reform, which transformed the intellectual and moral landscape of the country, we see the continuing rise of commerce, industry and the new forms of transportation which were rapidly altering the physical landscape of the town. This is reflected in handbills concerning everything from the trade in wine and ales (Item 2 Vol. 2), the malpractice of butchers at Lymington (Item 25, Vol. 1) to plans for a new canal linking Southampton to Salisbury (Item 22, Vol. 1) and the jubilant newspaper reports on the arrival in Southampton of Queen Victoria via the new railway in 1843 (Item 108, Vol. 2).

The individual handbills are listed in PDF files which can be downloaded from the Cope Collection LibGuide at:
http://library.soton.ac.uk/c.php?g=131329&p=3368707

Sources

[1] A History of Southampton 1700-1914, Vol. 1: An Oligarchy in Decline by A. Temple Patterson, Southampton University Press, 1966, pp. 176-77

[2] Ibid.

Elections and electioneering

With the 2015 General Election on 7 May, it seems timely to consider how elections and electioneering were practiced in earlier times. The Special Collections holds a range of material relating to politicians and politics. Below is a piece discussing the Southampton Poll Books which form part of the Cope Collection rare books.

MS 62 Broadlands Archives BR95 Photograph of the aftermath of an election speech by Evelyn Ashley at the Shanklin Institute, 1880

Major manuscript collections relating to politics from the eighteenth century onwards include the archives of the first Duke of Wellington; the Congleton Archive —with material for the Parnell family, which provides a fascinating insight into politics in Ireland; the papers of Lord Thorneycroft of Dunstan, who was a Conservative MP and Minister; and the Broadlands Archives.  Within the vast array of material in the Broadlands Archives are sections of papers that tell specific stories: such as the correspondence relating to endeavours to secure a seat for Henry Temple, third Viscount Palmerston, in the House of Commons in 1805-7, or the photographs documenting the violent aftermath of an election address by Evelyn Ashley in Shanklin Institute in 1880.

MS 134 AJ33/43 Leaflet for the Cheetham Ward Municipal election featuring Mrs Sarah Laski as a candidate, Nov 1933

Amongst the Anglo-Jewish Archives are papers of a number of individuals who were involved in politics on a local, national and European level, this ranges from the leaflets produced by Sarah Laski during her election campaigns as a local councillor in Cheetham from the 1920s, to those of Fred Tuckman who was both a councillor for Camden in London and a MEP for Leicester.

Southampton Poll Books
As you cast your vote in the General Election, you can be reasonably sure that your decision will remain private and certain that it will not become a matter of public record, open to the scrutiny of all. But the set of Southampton poll books in the Cope Collection shows that in earlier parliamentary elections this was not always the case.

From 1696 until the Ballot Act of 1872 there was a legal requirement that returning officers should be able to provide a copy of the poll if requested, the aim being to prevent electoral fraud. As printing became more widely established in the provinces, it became customary for poll books to be published by local printers and booksellers, rival businesses sometimes publishing their own copies of the same poll.

A True copy of the Poll at the Election of Two Burgesses to Serve in Parliament for the Town of Southampton … 1774
Southampton: T. Baker, 1774
Rare Books Cope SOU 31

For Southampton, there are nineteen locally printed poll books running from 1774, shortly after the first printer appeared in the town, to 1865. They record the names of the voters and identify the candidates for whom they voted. In many cases addresses and occupations are also included, information which is of value to researchers today, despite the limited nature of the franchise. The books vary in arrangement, some listing the voters in the order in which they voted – the poll usually being held over several days, and others by alphabetical order or with the names grouped by candidate.

Alphabetical List of the Voters who Polled at the Election of Two Burgesses to Serve in Parliament for the Town of Southampton … June 1818
Southampton: E. Skelton, [1818]
Rare Books Cope SOU 31

The 1818 poll book records the votes cast for William Chamberlayne of Weston Grove, Lord Ashtown, of Chessel House and Sir William Champion de Crespigny of Anspach House at the end of a particularly divisive campaign which had seen the swearing in of 100 special constables in order to keep the peace. Most of the abuse had been directed towards Lord Ashtown, an Irish peer, who failed in his attempt to secure one of the two seats on offer for the town.

List of the Voters who Polled at the Election of Two Members to Serve in Parliament … for the Town of Southampton … August 1842
Southampton: Best & Snowden, [1842]
Rare Books Cope SOU 31

The presentation copy of the poll book of 1842 shows the newly elected M.P.s, Humphrey St. John Mildmay and George William Hope, rewarding Thomas Wood, one of their voters, with a printed copy of the poll. That Southampton’s voters were often more lavishly rewarded is suggested by the fact that this vote was held only because the poll in the previous year’s general election had been declared void, the two successful candidates having been found guilty of bribery.