On this day on 29th January

On this day 1737 philosopher Thomas Paine, the son of a Quaker corset maker, was born in Thetford in Norfolk. After being educated at the local grammar school Paine became an apprentice corset maker in Kent. This was followed by work as an exciseman in Lincolnshire and a school teacher in London.

In 1768 Paine moved to Lewes where he was employed as an excise officer. Paine became involved in local politics, serving on the town council and establishing a debating club in a local inn.

Thomas Paine upset his employers when he demanded a higher salary. Paine was dismissed and he responded by publishing a pamphlet The Case of the Officers of Excise. While in London Paine met Benjamin Franklin who encouraged him to emigrate to America.

Thomas Paine settled in Philadelphia where he became a journalist. Paine had several articles published in the Pennsylvania Magazine including one advocating the abolition of slavery. In 1776 he published Common Sense, a 47 page pamphlet that attacked the British Monarchy and advocated independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies. It was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places. In proportion to the population of the colonies at that time (2.5 million), it had the largest sale and circulation of any book published in American history. Paine argues in the pamphlet: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

Paine said of the Monarchy: "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion... For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them."

Paine believed that the monarchy led to wars: "In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion... In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."

During the war of American Independence Thomas Paine wrote articles and pamphlets on the superiority of republican democracy over monarchical government and served with Washington's armies. Paine also travelled to France in 1781 to raise money for the American cause.

Thomas Paine played no role in American government after independence and in 1787 he returned to Britain. Paine continued to write on political issues and in 1791 published his most influential work, The Rights of Man. In the book Paine attacked hereditary government and argued for equal political rights. Paine suggested that all men over twenty-one in Britain should be given the vote and this would result in a House of Commons willing to pass laws favourable to the majority. The book also recommended progressive taxation, family allowances, old age pensions, maternity grants and the abolition of the House of Lords.

The British government was outraged by Paine's book and it was immediately banned. Paine was charged with seditious libel but he escaped to France before he could be arrested. Paine announced that he did not wish to make a profit from The Rights of Man and anyone had the right to reprint his book. It was printed in cheap editions so that it could achieve a working class readership. Although the book was banned, during the next two years over 200,000 people in Britain managed to buy a copy. One person who read the book was the shoemaker, Thomas Hardy. In 1792 Hardy founded the London Corresponding Society. The aim of the organisation was to achieve the vote for all adult males.

In 1792 Thomas Paine became a French citizen and was elected to the National Convention. Paine upset French revolutionaries when he opposed the execution of Louis XVI. He was arrested and kept in prison under the threat of execution from 28th December 1793 and 4th November 1794. Paine was only released after the American minister, James Monroe, put pressure on the French government.

While in prison Thomas Paine worked on book on the subject of religion. Age of Reason was published soon after his release and caused a tremendous impact because it questioned the truth of Christianity. Paine criticised the Old Testament for being untrue and immoral and claimed that the Gospels contained inaccuracies and contradictions.

In 1802 Thomas Paine moved back to America but the Age of Reason had upset a large number of people and he discovered that he had lost the popularity he had enjoyed during the War of Independence. Unable to return to Britain, Paine remained in America until his death in New York on 8th June 1809. By the time he had died, over 1,500,000 copies of The Rights of Man had been sold in Europe.

On this day in 1832 Elizabeth Sharples became the "first Englishwoman to speak publicly on matters of politics and religion." Elizabeth was one of six children born to Ann and Richard Sharples, a manufacturer, in Bolton in 1803. The children received a good education, and Eliza attended boarding-school until she was about twenty.

Sharples held conservative views until she began reading The Republican in 1830. She wrote to its editor, Richard Carlile, and after "a rapid exchange of correspondence in which admiration turned to ardent love, she determined to share his work". Even before he had met Sharples in person, Carlile anticipated that she would become "my daughter, my sister, my friend, my companion, my wife, my sweetheart, my everything".

Richard Carlile published an article in his new newspaper, The Prompter, in support of agricultural labourers campaigning against wage cuts. Carlile's advice to the labourers was "to go on as you have done". (3) This was interpreted by the authorities as a seditious call to arms. Carlile was arrested and charged with seditious libel and appeared at the Old Bailey in January 1831. Carlile argued that "neither in deed, nor in word, nor in idea, did I ever encourage acts of arson or machine breaking".

The court was not convinced by his arguments and Carlile was found guilty of seditious libel and received a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a large fine which he refused to pay, thereby extending the sentence by a further six months. While in prison he continued to write articles for radical newspapers and pamphlets such as New View of Insanity (1831).

In January 1832 Elizabeth Sharples moved to London and visited Carlile in prison. Carlile had always campaigned for women's rights and he invited her to speak at his Blackfriars Rotunda. Several times a week speakers delivered "attacks on the superstitions of Christianity, which Carlile had now identified as the single most obdurate opposition to reform and liberation". The Rotunda became an important centre for working-class dissent and political reform. Speakers included William Cobbett, Henry 'Orator' Hunt, Robert Owen, Daniel O'Connell, Robert Taylor and John Gale Jones. It is reported that at one meeting calling for parliamentary reform, drew a crowd of over 2,000 people.

Billed as "the first Englishwoman to speak publicly on matters of politics and religion" she gave her first talk on 29th January 1832. (7) The Times reported that she was "pretty, with a good figure and genteel manners" and dressed very well. (8) Sharples pointed out in her speech: "I will set before my sex the example of asserting an equality for them with their present lords and masters, and strive to teach all, yes, all, that the undue submission, which constitutes slavery, is honourable to none; while the mutual submission, which leads to mutual good, is to all alike dignified and honourable." (9) "Cast in the role of the Egyptian goddess Isis, she stood on the stage of the theatre, the floor strewn with whitethorn and laurel, and delivered lectures on mystical religion and women's rights."

Elizabeth Sharples was appointed as editor of a new radical weekly publication, Isis. She gave two lectures every Sunday (at sixpence for the pit and boxes, one shilling for the gallery), on Monday evenings (for half-price). She also gave a free lecture on Friday evenings to accommodate those unable to afford the entry charges.

Not everybody enjoyed her speeches. One man wrote to a national newspaper attacking the idea of a woman speaking in public: "Elizabeth Sharples is a female who exhibits herself in so unfeminine a manner... So utterly illiterate is the poor creature, that she cannot yet read what is set down for her with any degree of intelligibility... with her ignorance and unconquerable brogue... her lecturing is almost as ludicrous as it is painful to witness."

Richard Carlile supported Sharples in her campaign for women's rights: "I do not like the doctrine of women keeping at home, and minding the house and the family. It is as much the proper business of the man as the woman; and the woman, who is so confined, is not the proper companion of the public useful man." Edward Royle adds that "this just about sums up the position of women in the radical movement". Even if a woman was emancipated she was expected to be the "proper companion of the public useful man".

Elizabeth Sharples argued in her newspaper articles that Christianity was the chief barrier to the dissemination of knowledge; by denying the people education, priests were denying man's liberty. She suggested that passive and non-resistance was seen as the "doctrine of priesthood".

Sharples was Carlile's greatest supporter while he was in prison. She used the Rotunda platform" to castigate the priesthood, expose religious superstition and denigrate established authority". She promised "sweet revenge" on those responsible for the "incarceration of Carlile". She visited him in prison and began a sexual relationship.

In 1832 Jane Carlile moved out of the family home and started a bookshop of her own. In April 1833 Elizabeth Sharples gave birth to a son, Richard Sharples. Carlile realized that he would have to acknowledge their relationship, and thereupon declared that he and Eliza were joined in a "moral marriage".

Elizabeth Sharples had the task of running the Blackfriars Rotunda while Carlile was in prison. In February 1832, she reported that £1,000 was needed to keep the venture open, to cover rent, taxes, lights and repairs. At the same time there had been a reduction in audiences. She admitted that she had lost the support of the radical community: "I believe I stand alone in the country, as a modern Eve, daring to pluck the fruit of the tree, and to give it to timid, sheepish man. I have received kindnesses and encouragements from a few ladies since my appearance in the metropolis, but how few."

In August 1833, Richard Carlile was released from prison.The couple lived on the corner of Bouverie Street and Fleet Street. Richard Sharples died of smallpox in October 1833. Another son, Julian Hibbert, was born in September 1834. In November 1835 they took a seven-year lease on a cottage in Enfield Highway, where shortly afterwards a daughter, Hypatia, was born. A fourth child, Theophila, followed a year later.

Elizabeth accompanied Richard Carlile on his lecture tours. His biographer, Philip W. Martin, pointed out: "Carlile's position was shifting radically. While it is clear that he never retreated to orthodoxy, his increasing use of Christian rhetoric and his own claims for himself as a Christian were a far cry from the radicalism of his early years. Carlile still propounded a sceptical, rational view of religion, but his allegorical readings had diminished to a single interpretation of Christianity in which he saw Christ and the resurrection as the rebirth of the soul of reason in humankind".

Richard Carlile was still capable of drawing large crowds (1500 people in Leeds in 1839, and 3000 people in Stroud in 1842), it was clear that most radicals rejected his religious views and were attracted to the political arguments of Chartism. He was also in poor health and he died of a bronchial infection on 10th February 1843. As he had dedicated his body to science it was taken to St Thomas's Hospital before his burial at Kensal Green Cemetery in London on 26th February.

At first the family was supported by Sophia Chichester, who arranged for Elizabeth Sharples to take charge of the sewing-room at the Alcott House in Ham, the home of a utopian spiritual community and progressive school. After a few months a small legacy from an aunt enabled her to set up on her own, letting apartments and maintaining her family by her needlework.

In 1849, Elizabeth Sharples set up a coffee and discussion room at 1 Warner Place, Hackney Road, in which to advocate radical freethought and women's rights. Charles Bradlaugh visited her and described her as "looking like a queen" but she was "no good at serving coffee".

Elizabeth Sharples died on 11th January 1852 at her home, 12 George Street, Hackney.

On this day 1850 Ebenezer Howard, the third child and only son of Ebenezer Howard, was born at 62 Fore Street in London on 29th January 1850. Four of the nine Howard children died in infancy. His father owned several shops in the city. According to one source: "Ebenezer senior was a healthy, energetic and hard-working man whose day's labour began at 3.00 a.m. and lasted into the evening. His vitality was matched by a strong constitution and it was his proud boast that he had never suffered from a headache in over seventy years."

Howard was educated at private boarding-schools, first at Sudbury, then at Cheshunt and finally at Ipswich. He had a moderate academic career and was much more interested in his hobbies that included drawing, swimming, cricket, stamp collecting and photography. His reading appears to have been limited to the Boys' Own Magazine.

In 1865 Ebenezer Howard left school and found work in Greaves and Son, stockbrokers, of Warnford Court, London. His duties were mainly to copy out letters into a book using a quill pen. This was followed by employment as a junior clerk. During this period he taught himself Pitman's shorthand. This gave him the skills needed to work in solicitors' offices, first with E. Kimber of Winchester Buildings, and then Pawle, Livesey and Fearon whose offices were near Temple Bar. This was followed by becoming the private secretary to the preacher, Joseph Parker.

At the age of twenty-one Ebenezer Howard decided to emigrate to the United States. After a failed attempt to become a farmer in Nebraska, he became a stenographer in Chicago. Howard also became interested in political issues. He read the works of Tom Paine and began calling himself a "freethinker". Howard later commented: "I am, indeed, as my friends know, a man of some faith; but I am also - perhaps the combination is somewhat rare - a terrible sceptic." Alonzo Griffin, a Quaker, introduced him to the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman and James Russell Lowell.

Ebenezer Howard also became concerned with the subject of social reform. He was especially impressed with the experiments being carried out by Frederick Law Olmsted. He had designed the town of Riverside. As John Moss-Eccardt has pointed out: "Planned by Frederick Law Olmsted, this town had 700 of its 16,000 acres devoted to green roads, borders, parks and other features which produced a pleasing blend of town and country. Within this environment the Riverside citizen could pursue rural activities in congenial surroundings which combined the benefits of both worlds."

In 1876 Howard returned to London where he found work as a stenographer working in the House of Commons. Eventually he established his own business in Carey Street and in 1879 he married Elizabeth Ann Bills of Nuneaton. Over the next seven years she had four children, Cecil, Edith, Kathleen and Margery. A fifth died in infancy. According to the author of Ebenezer Howard (1973): "Their home life was very happy and Mrs Howard managed the family finances expertly... The couple were never irritable or annoyed with the children and the shortage of money seems to have made no difference at all to their enjoyment of life."

Howard became very interested in social reform. In 1879 Howard joined the Zetetical Society, a philosophical and sociological debating group, which met weekly in the rooms of the Women's Protective & Provident League in Long Acre and got to know fellow members, George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb. He was also influenced by the work of William Blake, Thomas Spence, Henry George, William Morris, John Ruskin and Peter Kropotkin. He was especially impressed with George's Progress and Poverty and Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops.

In 1889 Howard read Looking Backward, a novel by Edward Bellemy. Set in Boston, the book's hero, Julian West, falls into a hypnotic sleep and wakes in the year 2000, to find he is living in a socialist utopia where people co-operate rather than compete. Edward W. Younkins has argued: "This novel of social reform was published in 1888, a time when Americans were frightened by working class violence and disgusted by the conspicuous consumption of the privileged minority. Bitter strikes occurred as labor unions were just beginning to appear and large trusts dominated the nation’s economy. The author thus employs projections of the year 2000 to put 1887 society under scrutiny. Bellamy presents Americans with portraits of a desirable future and of their present day. He defines his perfect society as the antithesis of his current society. Looking Backward embodies his suspicion of free markets and his admiration for centralized planning and deliberate design."

Howard later commented: "This I read at a sitting, not at all critically, and was fairly carried away by the eloquence and evidently strong convictions of the author. This book graphically pictured the whole American nation organised on co-operative principles-this mighty change coming about with marvellous celerity-the necessary mental and ethical changes having previously occurred with equal rapidity. The next morning as I went up to the City from Stamford Hill I realised, as never before, the splendid possibilities of a new civilisation based on service to the community and not on self-interest, at present the dominant motive. Then I determined to take such part as I could, however small it might be, in helping to bring a new civilisation into being."

As a first step he persuaded William Reeves, a radical Fleet Street publisher, to bring out an English edition, but only by offering to take the first 100 copies. Howard also began thinking of what his utopia would look like. As Mervyn Miller, the author of English Garden Cities: An Introduction (2010) has pointed out: "Howard's objective was to find a remedy for overcrowded and unhealthy conditions in the fast-growing industrial cities, and the accompanying rural depopulation and agricultural depression. He believed access to the countryside to be necessary for the complete physical and social development of humankind. It was no longer acceptable for urban development to be left to the minimally regulated private enterprise of landowners and industrialists. In taking evidence for royal commissions, Howard had been impressed by the unanimity of opinion of labour and capital over the failure of the city to provide decent housing and working conditions. Howard's solution was to provide a new form of settlement as a vehicle for radical social and environmental reform. He proposed the development of new towns, not for individual or corporate profit, but for the benefit of the whole community. These, the garden cities, were to be both residential and industrial, well planned, of limited size and population, and surrounded by a permanent rural belt, integrating the best aspects of town and country. Each garden city was to be self-contained, and built on land purchased by trustees, and used as an asset, against which the cost of development would be raised. The value of the land would increase, and periodic revaluation of the plots leased to individuals would reap the benefit for the community, with dividends to shareholders in the enterprise limited to 5 per cent."

Over the next ten years Howard worked on producing the blueprint of his "path to peaceful reform". John Moss-Eccardt has argued: "The work was done at odd times gleaned from the hours spent in the very necessary business of making a living. He wrote on the dining table, often during meals, at Kyverdale Road, Stoke Newington, and copies were typed by a cousin because he couldn't afford to pay a professional typist. As the work grew he circulated the typescript to friends both in local government and in the church. In spite of great interest in his ideas from various sections of his circle, the book remained in typescript form as no one would risk its publication; but fate seemed to take a hand when help came from a friend known to Howard and his wife through a common interest in religion."

George Dickman, a friend of the family, gave Howard £50 so that he could get the finished manuscript published. Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform was published in October 1898. Howard later admitted, "my friends and supporters never regarded this book, any more than I did, as more than a sketch or outline of what we hoped to accomplish". The Times praised his ideas but dismissed them as impractical: "The only difficulty is to create such a City, but that is a small matter to Utopians".

Ebenezer Howard argues in Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform that he hopes to build what he calls a Garden City: "The objects of this land purchase may be stated in various ways, but it is sufficient here to say that some of the chief objects are these: To find for our industrial population work at wages of higher purchasing power, and to secure healthier surroundings and more regular employment. To enterprising manufacturers, co-operative societies, architects, engineers, builders, and mechanicians of all kinds, as well as to many engaged in various professions, it is intended to offer a means of securing new and better employment for their capital and talents, while to the agriculturists at present on the estate as well as to those who may migrate thither, it is designed to open a new market for their produce close to their doors. Its object is, in short, to raise the standard of health and comfort of all true workers of whatever grade - the means by which these objects are to be achieved being a healthy, natural, and economic combination of town and country life, and this on land owned by the municipality."

Howard then went on to claim that the "Garden City, which is to be built near the centre of the 6,000 acres, covers an area of 1,000 acres, or a sixth part of the 6,000 acres, and might be of circular form, 1,240 yards (or nearly three-quarters of a mile) from centre to circumference.... Six magnificent boulevards-each 120 feet wide-traverse the city from centre to circumference, dividing it into six equal parts or wards. In the centre is a circular space containing about five and a half acres, laid out as a beautiful and well-watered garden; and, surrounding this garden, each standing in its own ample grounds, are the larger public buildings - town hall, principal concert and lecture hall, theatre, library, museum, picture-gallery, and hospital."

George Dickman, a friend of the family, gave Howard £50 so that he could get the finished manuscript published. Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform was published in October 1898. Howard later admitted, "my friends and supporters never regarded this book, any more than I did, as more than a sketch or outline of what we hoped to accomplish". The Times praised his ideas but dismissed them as impractical: "The only difficulty is to create such a City, but that is a small matter to Utopians".

Ebenezer Howard's friend, George Bernard Shaw, described him as an amazing man who deserved a knighthood and supported his efforts. Walter Crane was another socialist who fully supported his proposals. However, other members of the Fabian Society were much more critical. They disliked the way that Howard criticised socialist views on the role of the state in town planning. Howard admitted that he approved of some of the values of the left: "Communism is a most excellent principle, and all of us are Communists in some degree, even those who would shudder at being told so. For we all believe in communistic roads, communistic parks, and communistic libraries. But though Communism is an excellent principle. Individualism is no less excellent. A great orchestra which enraptures us with its delightful music is composed of men and women who are accustomed not only to play together, but to practise separately, and to delight themselves and their friends by their own, it may be comparatively, feeble efforts. Nay, more: isolated and individual thought and action are as essential, if the best results of combination are to be secured, as combination and co-operation are essential, if the best results of isolated effort are to be gained. It is by isolated thought that new combinations are worked out; it is through the lessons learned in associated effort that the best individual work is accomplished; and that society will prove the most healthy and vigorous where the freest and fullest opportunities are afforded alike for individual and for combined effort."

Ebenezer Howard went on to argue: "Men love combined effort, but they love individual effort, too, and they will not be content with such few opportunities for personal effort as they would be allowed to make in a rigid socialistic community. Men do not object to being organized under competent leadership, but some also want to be leaders, and to have a share in the work of organizing; they like to lead as well as to be led. Besides, one can easily imagine men filled with a desire to serve the community in some way which the community as a whole did not at the moment appreciate the advantage of, and who would be precluded by the very constitution of the socialistic state from carrying their proposals into effect."

Socialists tended to want to reform existing towns and cities. The Fabian News commented: "His plans would have been in time if they had been submitted to the Romans when they conquered Britain. They set about laying out cities, and our forefathers have dwelt in them to this day. Now Mr Howard proposes to pull them down and substitute garden cities, each duly built according to pretty coloured plans, nicely designed with a ruler and compass. The author has read many learned and interesting writers, and the extracts he makes from their books are like plums in the unpalatable dough of his Utopian scheming. We have got to make the best of our existing cities, and proposals for building new ones are about as useful as would be arrangements for protection against visits from Mr Wells's Martians."

On 10th June 1899, Ebenezer Howard and his friends established the Garden City Association. The Association organised lectures on "garden cities as a solution of the housing problem" which were addressed "to educational, social, political, co-operative, municipal, religious and temperance societies and institutions". Important members included Edward Grey, William Lever, Edward Cadbury, Ralph Neville, Thomas Howell Idris and Aneurin Williams.

In 1900 the Garden City Limited was established with share capital of £50,000. The following year a conference was held at Bournville which three hundred delegates attended. Over a thousand attended the national conference at Port Sunlight in June 1902. Howard's book was now reissued as Garden Cities of Tomorrow. By 1903 the Garden City Association had over 2,500 members. The Garden City Pioneer Company was constituted, with Howard as managing director, to find a suitable site for the first garden city. In 1903 Howard purchased 3,818 acres in Letchworth for £155,587.

Ebenezer Howard employed Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker as the architects responsible for building Letchworth Garden City. Both men were greatly interested in social reform and had been greatly influenced by John Ruskin and William Morris. They had previously been employed by Joseph Rowntree to establish an estate for his workers in New Earswick. As John Moss-Eccardt pointed out: "Both young men wanted to express their convictions, which were greatly influenced by Ruskin and Morris, in visual architecture... This was an important part of the social reform movement, more than a mere alleviation of poor housing and environmental conditions in industrial towns. It ranked as a forerunner of garden cities in that it paid attention deliberately to creating an environment which promoted health and happiness in its inhabitants."

Unwin explained: "The successful setting out of such a work as a new city will only be accomplished by the frank acceptance of the natural conditions of the site; and, humbly bowing to these, by the fearless following out of some definite and orderly design based on them ... such natural features should be taken as the keynote of the composition; but beyond this there must be no meandering in a false imitation of so-called natural lines."

Parker held strong views on creating a beautiful environment. He believed that the destruction of a single tree should be avoided, unless absolutely necessary. It was decided that it was important to make full "use of the undulating nature of the terrain to provide vistas and prospects. By grouping numbers of houses together it was possible to have large gaps between the groups, thus providing views of gardens, countryside or buildings beyond."

Andrew Saint has argued: "The concept of the self-sufficient garden city promoted by Howard in Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1898–1902) having been entirely diagrammatic, Unwin was in effect asked to endow Letchworth with an image and identity. This raised issues of industrial and civic planning, phasing, and investment on a scale that no British architect had hitherto faced. The plan was revised in 1905–6, when work at Letchworth commenced. The housing areas got the earliest attention, Unwin tackling road layout, grouping, plot size, style, and supervision with originality and a remarkable perception of the complex issues. But Letchworth's civic centre, which was allotted an axial approach perhaps derived from Wren's plan for rebuilding London, grew too slowly for the ideas of Parker and Unwin to be carried through, and remains a grave disappointment. Despite Unwin's critical role at Letchworth, where he lived between 1904 and 1906, he never identified wholly with Howard's obsession with autonomous garden cities on virgin sites detached from metropolitan influence, and indeed left further work at Letchworth to Parker after 1914."

Ebenezer Howard died in the late autumn of 1904. Howard moved to a house in Norton Way South in Letchworth Garden City. On 25th March 1907 he remarried; his second wife, Edith Hayward, a 42-year-old spinster. During these years Letchworth continued to grow. Howard did what he could to develop a community spirit. Activities ranged from Arbor Days (a holiday in which individuals and groups are encouraged to plant and care for trees), May Day festivities, amateur dramatics and poetry readings.

The aftermath of the First World War brought government involvement with the provision of working-class housing, through grants made to local authorities under the 1919 Housing Act. However, Howard was disappointed by the lack of commitment to the building of new self-contained communities by state or private enterprise and decided to look for a place to build a second Garden City. Eventually, Howard purchased 1,458 acres in Hertfordshire.

On 29th April 1920 a company, Welwyn Garden City Limited, was formed to plan and build the garden city. Louis de Soissons was appointed as architect and town planner and the first house was occupied just before Christmas 1920. To support it in its early years, Howard moved to 5 Guessens Road on the estate. In twelve years Welwyn Garden became a flourishing town of nearly 10,000 residents.

According to his biographer, Mervyn Miller: "Howard remained a poor man all his life, receiving little monetary return from his directorships at Letchworth and Welwyn. He was devoid of personal ambition, but had a remarkable gift of inspiring other people. Being absolutely convinced of the rightness of his ideas, he was driven by an ardent enthusiasm. Neither a professional town planner nor a financier, he convinced town planners and financiers of the practical soundness of his ideas, but readily accepted their expertise in carrying his concepts into practice... Public recognition came late in life: he was appointed OBE in 1924 and knighted in 1927." George Bernard Shaw described him as "one of those heroic simpletons who do big things whilst our prominent worldlings are explaining why they are Utopian and impossible. And of course it is they who will make money out of his work".

Ebenezer Howard died on 1st May, 1928.

On this day in 1858 journalist Charles Repington was born at 15 Chesham Street, London. His father, Henry Wyndham Repington, was Conservative MP for Wilton (1852-1855).

Repington was educated at Eton College (1871-76) and Sandhurst Military College (1876-78). He joined the Rifle Brigade and after active service in Afghanistan, he entered the Camberley Staff College (1887-89). Fellow students included Herbert Plumer and Horace Smith-Dorrien.

He took part in the Boer War and his biographer, A. J. A. Morris, has argued: "When invalided home from the South African campaign he had reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel, had been mentioned in dispatches four times, and created CMG. Bold, tenacious, able, ambitious, and hard-working, he had proved himself a fine regimental, and an outstanding staff officer. But his considerable virtues were complemented by not inconsiderable faults. He was extravagant, impetuous, and sometimes cavalier in his attitude to authority and routine. He never suffered fools gladly, whatever their rank."

In 1900 Repington was posted to Egypt where he became involved with Mary North Garstin (1868–1953) the wife of Sir William Edmund Garstin, a senior official in the Egyptian ministry of public works. The military authorities warned Repington about his behaviour and he gave his written promise, "upon his honour as a soldier and a gentleman" to stop seeing the woman. However, the relationship continued and when Garstin named Repington in divorce proceedings, he was forced to resign from the army. Repington blamed Henry Wilson, his commanding officer, for his dismissal.

Repington turned to journalism and his first regular contributions were to The Westminster Gazette. He was also military correspondent of the Morning Post (1902-1904) before joining The Times in 1904. His accounts of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904–5 earned him international recognition as an outstanding military commentator.

Charles Repington had strong views on defence matters. A. J. A. Morris has argued: "International tensions forced changes in British foreign policy that in turn posed complex defence problems. Repington offered solutions that his civilian readers could comprehend. He advocated a general staff, and, believing in the co-ordination of military and naval planning and closer imperial ties, was an enthusiastic supporter of the infant committee of imperial defence. He opposed the dominant ‘blue water’ strategists, who claimed the navy alone was sufficient to secure Britain against invasion." Repington also warned of a possible German invasion and was a strong supporter of an alliance with France and in 1905 he was awarded the Légion d'honneur for working as their intermediary.

Repington disliked nearly all politicians. He told Leo Maxse, the editor of The National Review, that they were "Tadpoles and Tapers shivering for their shekel… rabble seeking office and rewards." Most ministers were "ignorant… uncaring… they know nothing of the Army". The only senior politician he had time for was Richard Haldane who he called "the best Secretary of State we have had at the War Office so far as brain and ability are concerned" and generally supported his military reforms.

On the outbreak of the First World War Repington remained in London and relied on his contacts in the British Army and the War Office for his information. Through his friendship with the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Sir John French, Repington was invited to visit the Western Front in November 1914, whereas most war correspondents were banned from France.

On a visit to France during the offensive at Artois, Repington was shown confidential information about the British Army being short of artillery shells. When his article about the shell shortage appeared in The Daily Mail, its owner, Lord Northcliffe, called for Lord Kitchener, the War Minister, to be sacked. Repington now had growing influence over military policy and one politician described him as "the twenty-third member of the Cabinet". The discussion that followed Repington's article resulted in David Lloyd George being appointed Minister of Munitions. However, Lord Kitchener got his revenge on Repington by getting him banned from the front-line and he was not allowed to return until March, 1916.

Repington was a strong advocate of war by attrition and supported General William Robertson and his leading advisor, Frederick Maurice, that the war would be won by the allies concentrating their forces on the Western Front. The prime-minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, did not challenge this approach to the war. However, he lost office after the failure of the Somme Offensive. His replacement, David Lloyd George, disagreed with this strategy and at various stages advocated a campaign on the Italian front and sought to divert military resources to the Turkish theatre. Repington was highly critical of what he described as "side-shows" and accused Lloyd George of being an "amateur strategist" who starved the army of the men and munitions it required. Some of Repington's articles were censored by his editor, Geoffrey Dawson, and in January 1918, he resigned from The Times and joined the Morning Post.

According to the historian, Michael Kettle, Repington became involved in a plot to overthrow David Lloyd George. Others involved in the conspiracy included General William Robertson, Chief of Staff and the prime ministers main political adviser, Maurice Hankey, the secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) and General Frederick Maurice, director of military operations at the War Office. Kettle argues that: "What Maurice had in mind was a small War Cabinet, dominated by Robertson, assisted by a brilliant British Ludendorff, and with a subservient Prime Minister. It is unclear who Maurice had in mind for this Ludendorff figure; but it is very clear that the intention was to get rid of Lloyd George - and quickly."

On 24th January, 1918, Repington wrote an article where he described what he called "the procrastination and cowardice of the Cabinet". Later that day Repington heard on good authority that Lloyd George had strongly urged the War Cabinet to imprison both him and his editor, Howell Arthur Gwynne. That evening Repington was invited to have dinner with Lord Chief Justice Charles Darling, where he received a polite judicial rebuke.

General William Robertson disagreed with Lloyd George's proposal to create an executive war board, chaired by Ferdinand Foch, with broad powers over allied reserves. Robertson expressed his opposition to General Herbert Plumer in a letter on 4th February, 1918: "It is impossible to have Chiefs of the General Staffs dealing with operations in all respects except reserves and to have people with no other responsibilities dealing with reserves and nothing else. In fact the decision is unsound, and neither do I see how it is to be worked either legally or constitutionally."

On 11th February, Repington, revealed in the Morning Post details of the coming offensive on the Western Front. Lloyd George later recorded: "The conspirators decided to publish the war plans of the Allies for the coming German offensive. Repington's betrayal might and ought to have decided the war." Repington and his editor, Howell Arthur Gwynne, were fined £100 each, plus costs, for a breach of Defence of the Realm regulations when he disclosed secret information in the newspaper.

General William Robertson wrote to Repington suggesting that he had been the one who had leaked him the information: "Like yourself, I did what I thought was best in the general interests of the country. I feel that your sacrifice has been great and that you have a difficult time in front of you. But the great thing is to keep on a straight course". General Frederick Maurice also sent a letter to Repington: "I have the greatest admiration for your courage and determination and am quite clear that you have been the victim of political persecution such as I did not think was possible in England."

Robertson put up a fight in the war cabinet against the proposed executive war board, but when it was clear that Lloyd George was unwilling to back down, he resigned his post. He was now replaced with General Henry Wilson. General Douglas Haig rejected the idea that Robertson should become one of his commanders in France and he was given the eastern command instead.

After the war Repington worked for the Daily Telegraph. His editor, Edward Lawson-Levy, commented: "He wrote at a time in international affairs when his special knowledge and talent were particularly valuable. Though his critics chose to regard him as a somewhat extinct volcano... however he retained the distinction which characterized all that he did."

Repington also wrote several books on the war including The First World War (1920) and After the War (1922). In these books Repington divulged private conversations and correspondence. Although the books sold well, Repington was shunned by former friends who felt he had betrayed them. His biographer, A. J. A. Morris has pointed out: "Though they remain an important historical source, at the time his public recollection of private gossip further damaged his already precarious social position. Repington's wife had refused to divorce him. Nevertheless Mary Garstin, through all their vicissitudes, supported Repington: she took his name, lived with him as his wife, bore him a daughter, and forgave him his not infrequent indiscretions."

Charles Repington died at his home, Pembroke Lodge, Hove on 25th May, 1925. He was buried at St Barnabas's Church on 29 May.

On this day in 1872 William Rothenstein, the fifth of the six children of Moritz Rothenstein (1836–1915) and his wife, Bertha Dux (1844–1912), was born at 4 Spring Bank, Bradford. His father, a businessman, had arrived from Hildesheim, Lower Saxony, in 1859.

Rothenstein was educated at Bradford Grammar School where he developed a strong interest in art. In 1888 he went to the Slade School of Fine Art where he came under the influence of Alphonse Legros. The following year he attended the Académie Julian in Paris. During this period he met Roger Fry, Oscar Wilde, Walter Sickert, James Whistler, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Camille Pissarro, Edgar Degas and Paul Verlaine. His biographer, Mary Lago, has pointed out: "He became known as a person with a gift for friendship and as a precocious talent." Max Beerbohm commented: "He was a wit. He was brimful of ideas. He knew Whistler. He knew Edmond de Goncourt. He knew everyone in Paris. He knew them all by heart. He was Paris in Oxford." As a result of his contacts, Rothenstein was commissioned to produce Oxford Characters (1896) and English Portraits (1898).

On 11th June 1899, Rothenstein married Alice Mary Knewstub (1869–1955), who had appeared on the stage as Alice Kingsley. They had four children, John, William, Rachel and Betty. He rented a studio in Spitalfields and began his eight Synagogue Paintings. These paintings dealt with Jewish religious life.

Rothenstein took a keen interest in the work of young artists. This included Augustus John who wrote in his autobiography, Chiaroscuro: "Encouraged by Will Rothenstein, I held my first show at the newly established Carfax Gallery, Ryder Street, St. James's... My little show was a success. I made thirty pounds. With this sum in my pocket there was nothing to prevent me joining Will Rothenstein, Orpen and Charles Conder in France. Rothenstein had found a good spot not far from Étretat on the Normandy coast."

Rothenstein, Augustus John and Charles Conder went to Paris to visit Oscar Wilde. John later recalled: "I had heard a lot about Oscar, of course, and on meeting him was not in the least disappointed, except in one respect: prison discipline had left one, and apparently only one, mark on him, and that not irremediable: his hair was cut short... We assembled first at the Cafe de la Regence.... The Monarch of the dinner-table seemed none the worse for his recent misadventures and showed no sign of bitterness, resentment or remorse. Surrounded by devout adherents, he repaid their hospitality by an easy flow of practised wit and wisdom, by which he seemed to amuse himself as much as anybody. The obligation of continual applause I, for one, found irksome. Never, I thought, had the face of praise looked more foolish."

Augustus John was the subject of his painting, The Dolls House (1900). He later wrote: "It was at Vattetot that William Rothenstein painted The Doll’s House for which Alice Rothenstein and I posed. This is a regular problem picture. I am portrayed standing at the foot of a staircase upon which Alice has un accountably seated herself. I appear to be ready for the road, for I am carrying a mackintosh on my arm and am shod and hatted. But Alice seems to hesitate. Can she have changed her mind at the last moment? But what could have been her intention? Perhaps the weather had changed for the worse and made a promenade inadvisable: but we shall never know. The picture will remain a perpetual enigma, to disturb, fascinate or repel".

In 1907 Rothenstein gave important support to Jacob Epstein. Rothenstein also took a keen interest in the career of Mark Gertler. After seeing the work of the sixteen-year-old East Ender in 1908 he wrote to his father: "It is never easy to prophesy regarding the future of an artist but I do sincerely believe that your son has gifts of a high order, and that if he will cultivate them with love and care, that you will one day have reason to be proud of him. I believe that a good artist is a very noble man, and it is worth while giving up many things which men consider very important, for others which we think still more so. From the little I could see of the character of your son, I have faith in him and I hope and believe he will make the best possible use of the opportunities I gather you are going to be generous enough to give him." Rothenstein managed to secure a place at the Slade School of Fine Art and arranged for his fees to be paid by the Jewish Educational Aid Society.

Rothenstein took a keen interest in Mughal Painting and in 1910 established an India Society to educate the British public about Indian arts. Later that year he went to India with the painter Christiana Herringham, who had been involved in a project copying the rapidly deteriorating Buddhist wall-paintings in the Ajanta Caves. While in Calcutta (Kolcata) he met the poet Rabindranath Tagore. It has been claimed by Mary Lago that: "The influence of Indian art led to changes in Rothenstein's own painting: enamoured of the mass and solidity of Indian architecture, his own Indian scenes became heavier in style where formerly they had been light and delicate."

While he was in India, Roger Fry, Clive Bell and Desmond MacCarthy were in Paris visiting "Parisian dealers and private collectors, arranging an assortment of paintings to exhibit at the Grafton Galleries" in Mayfair. This included a selection of paintings by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Paul Cézanne, Édouard Manet, Paul Gauguin, André Derain and Vincent Van Gogh. As the author of Crisis of Brilliance (2009) has pointed out: "Although some of these paintings were already twenty or even thirty years old - and four of the five major artists represented were dead - they were new to most Londoners." This exhibition had a marked impression on the work of Duncan Grant, Vanessa Bell and Spencer Gore.

Henry Tonks, one of Britain's leading artists and the most important teacher at the Slade Art School, told his students that although he could not prevent them visiting the Grafton Galleries, he could tell them "how very much better pleased he would be if we did not risk contamination but stayed away". The critic for The Pall Mall Gazette described the paintings as the "output of a lunatic asylum". Robert Ross of The Morning Post agreed claiming the "emotions of these painters... are of no interest except to the student of pathology and the specialist in abnormality". These comments were especially hurtful to Fry as his wife had recently been committed to an institution suffering from schizophrenia. Paul Nash recalled that he saw Claude Phillips, the art critic of The Daily Telegraph, on leaving the exhibition, "threw down his catalogue upon the threshold of the Grafton Galleries and stamped on it."

William Rothenstein also disliked Fry's post-impressionist exhibition. He wrote in his autobiography, Men and Memories (1932) that he feared that the excessive publicity that the exhibition received, would seduce younger artists from "more personal, more scrupulous work". Rothenstein was in great demand as a lecturer and he used this position to deal with "philosophical questions concerning the meaning of art, the function of art schools and museums, the artist's role in an industrial culture, and, in the decline of personal patronage, the importance of generating municipal support for artists and craftsmen."

On the outbreak of First World War in 1914 the Rothenstein family suffered from strong anti-German feeling in Britain. The three brothers decided to change the family name to Rutherston. Charles and Albert went through with the change but at the last minute William decided that it "meant too great a sacrifice of continuity and identity" and remained as Rothenstein.

Only two photographers, both army officers, were allowed to take pictures of the Western Front. The penalty for anyone else caught taking a photograph of the war was the firing squad. Charles Masterman, head of the War Propaganda Bureau (WPB), was aware that the right sort of pictures would help the war effort. In May 1916 Masterman recruited the artist, Muirhead Bone. He was sent to France and by October had produced 150 drawings of the war. When Bone returned to England he was replaced by his brother-in-law, Francis Dodd, who had been working for the Manchester Guardian.

Rothenstein offered his services to the WPB but because of his German connections he was initially turned down. However, in December 1917 he was allowed to join other artists abroad including Eric Kennington, William Orpen, Paul Nash, John Nash, C. R. W. Nevinson, John Sargent, Augustus John, Henry Lamb, Colin Gill, William Roberts, Wyndham Lewis, Stanley Spencer, Philip Wilson Steer, George Clausen, Bernard Meninsky, Charles Pears, Sydney Carline, David Bomberg, Austin Osman Spare, Gilbert Ledward and Charles Jagger.

Soon after he arrived on the Somme front he was arrested as a spy. He stayed with the British Fifth Army in 1918 and during the German Spring Offensive, served as a unofficial medical orderly. He returned to England in March and his pictures were exhibited in May, 1918. Pictures by Rothenstein included The Ypres Salient and Talbot House, Ypres.

After the war Rothenstein returned to London. In 1919 Herbert Fisher, president of the Board of Education, appointed Rothenstein to write a report on the Royal College of Art. Rothenstein's report found that "the separation between training and employment for artists on the one hand, and for designers and industrial craftsmen on the other, was imbalanced, and advised that art training should encourage experimentation and flexibility for both." Fisher then appointed Rothenstein, as principal of the college.

Rothenstein continued to promote the careers of experimental artists such as Henry Moore. He neglected his own work and as Mary Lago has pointed out: "His greater intensity and earnestness were evident in his habitual dissatisfaction with his own work, his fears about loss of facility in draughtsmanship, and his concern over the spiritual content both in his own work and that of his colleagues." He also wrote two volumes of autobiograpy, Men and Memories (1932) and Since Fifty (1939).

Although sixty-six when the Second World War started, Rothenstein, who was suffering from heart problems, became an artist with the Royal Air Force. Unable to go abroad he made portrait drawings of airmen at RAF bases in England.

William Rothenstein died at his home on 14th February 1945 and was buried at St Bartholomew's Church, Oakridge, Gloucestershire.

On this day in 1885 journalist Morgan Philips Price was born in Taynton, Gloucestershire. The son of William Edwin Price, MP for Tewkesbury, he was educated at Harrow. He later recalled: "When I was fourteen I went to Harrow. My father had been to Eton, but my Trevelyan uncle and cousins had all been to Harrow, so my mother found it easier to get my name down for a house. I was very glad she made that choice. I owe much to Harrow and in all my later life have looked back on the old School with veneration, love and respect."

Price then went to Trinity College. In 1906 he inherited a 2000-acre estate. A member of the Liberal Party, Price became prospective party candidate for Gloucester in 1911. He was on the left of the party and soon after his selection he argued: "What in general we have to realize is that the State has to compromise between private and public interests. Private interests, enterprise and initiative must be allowed free play up to a point, but the great Liberal principle is that wherever private interests can be shown to be in antagonism to public interests, then the public interests must prevail. One of the best ways of preventing abuse of private monopoly and privilege is by the free exercise of economic laws or, in other words, by free trade. I look also with great sympathy on the movement of organized labour, because I maintain that if it is properly guided it can be of the greatest progressive force in this country and I am sure that in time the Labour movement will become an international movement and the only great force that will secure international peace."

Price was against Britain's participation in the First World War. In his memoirs he recalled discussing the issue with Charles Trevelyan, E. D. Morel, Bertrand Russell, Arthur Ponsonby and Ramsay MacDonald: "All these doubts about the circumstances under which we had become involved in the First World War were welling up in my mind in the latter part of 1914. In London, I went to see my cousin, Sir Charles Trevelyan, who held the same views as I did, and together we went to see Bertrand Russell, E. D. Morel, Arthur Ponsonby, Lowes Dickinson and Ramsay Macdonald, who had made a very courageous speech in the House on the declaration of War." The men decided to form the Union of Democratic Control, the most important of all the anti-war organizations in Britain. Price's major contribution was the publication of The Diplomatic History of the War (1914).

Price spoke Russian and he was recruited by C.P. Scott to report the war on the Eastern Front for the Manchester Guardian. "He (C. P. Scott) asked me to lunch at his house in Fallowfield and there we arranged something that was to become one of the turning points of my life. It turned out that Scott had been thinking just as I had. He scouted the whole idea that Tsarist Russia was going to change as the result of being allied to us and France; rather he feared the reverse might happen. He wanted someone to go to Russia for the Manchester Guardian and keep him informed about what was happening there. He might not be able to publish everything that was sent for reasons connected with the War, but at least he wanted to be informed."

Price was sent to Petrograd and reported on the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II. On 8th July, 1917, Alexander Kerensky became the new leader of the Provisional Government. In the Duma he had been leader of the moderate socialists and had been seen as the champion of the working-class. However, Kerensky, like his predecessor, George Lvov, was unwilling to end the war. In fact, soon after taking office, he announced a new summer offensive.

The Bolsheviks grew in strength and Price watched their leaders, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, very closely during this period. "Lenin struck me as being a man who, in spite of the revolutionary jargon that he used, was aware of the obstacles facing him and his party. There was no doubt that Lenin was the driving force behind the Bolshevik Party... He was the brains and the planner, but not the orator or the rabble-rouser. That function fell to Trotsky. I watched the latter, several times that evening, rouse the Congress delegates, who were becoming listless, probably through long hours of excitement and waiting. He was always the man who could say the right thing at the right moment. I could see that there was beginning now that fruitful partnership between him and Lenin that did so much to carry the Revolution through the critical periods that were coming."

Price explained in the Manchester Guardian on 19th November, 1917, why the government of Alexander Kerensky fell: "The Government of Kerensky fell before the Bolshevik insurgents because it had no supporters in the country. The bourgeois parties and the generals and the staff disliked it because it would not establish a military dictatorship. The Revolutionary Democracy lost faith in it because after eight months it had neither given land to the peasants nor established State control of industries, nor advanced the cause of the Russian peace programme. Instead it brought off the July advance without any guarantee that the Allies had agreed to reconsider war aims. The Bolsheviks thus acquired great support all over the country. In my journey in the provinces in September and October I noticed that every local Soviet had been captured by them."

Price was initially sympathetic to the leaders of the Russian Revolution. However, he disapproved of the Constituent Assemby being closed down and the banning political parties such as the Cadets, Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. Price reported on those Bolsheviks who disapproved of these tactics. This included interviewing Rosa Luxemburg in while in prison in Berlin. He later reported: "She asked me if the Soviets were working entirely satisfactorily. I replied, with some surprise, that of course they were. She looked at me for a moment, and I remember an indication of slight doubt on her face, but she said nothing more. Then we talked about something else and soon after that I left. Though at the moment when she asked me that question I was a little taken aback, I soon forgot about it. I was still so dedicated to the Russian Revolution, which I had been defending against the Western Allies' war of intervention, that I had had no time for anything else."

On his return to England, Price published My Reminiscences of the Russian Revolution (1921). In the book he criticised Lenin's Bolshevik government and instead supported the views put forward by Rosa Luxemburg: "She did not like the Russian Communist Party monopolizing all power in the Soviets and expelling anyone who disagreed with it. She feared that Lenin's policy had brought about, not the dictatorship of the working classes over the middle classes, which she approved of but the dictatorship of the Communist Party over the working classes. The dictatorship of a class - yes, she said, but not the dictatorship of a party over a class."

Price worked for the Daily Herald in Germany (1919-23) and after joining the Labour Party, was its unsuccessful candidate for Gloucester in three successive elections (1922, 1923 and 1924). He was elected to represent Whitehaven in the 1929 General Election and was appointed by Ramsay MacDonald as Private Secretary to Charles Trevelyan, president of the Board of Education.

In March 1931 MacDonald asked Sir George May, to form a committee to look into Britain's economic problems. The committee included two members that had been nominated from the three main political parties. At the same time, John Maynard Keynes, the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, published his report on the causes and remedies for the depression. This included an increase in public spending and by curtailing British investment overseas.

Philip Snowden rejected these ideas and this was followed by the resignation of Price's uncle, Charles Trevelyan, the Minister of Education. "For some time I have realised that I am very much out of sympathy with the general method of Government policy. In the present disastrous condition of trade it seems to me that the crisis requires big Socialist measures. We ought to be demonstrating to the country the alternatives to economy and protection. Our value as a Government today should be to make people realise that Socialism is that alternative."

When the May Committee produced its report in July, 1931, it forecast a huge budget deficit of £120 million and recommended that the government should reduce its expenditure by £97,000,000, including a £67,000,000 cut in unemployment benefits. The two Labour Party nominees on the committee, Arthur Pugh and Charles Latham, refused to endorse the report. As David W. Howell has pointed out: "A committee majority of actuaries, accountants, and bankers produced a report urging drastic economies; Latham and Pugh wrote a minority report that largely reflected the thinking of the TUC and its research department. Although they accepted the majority's contentious estimate of the budget deficit as £120 million and endorsed some economies, they considered the underlying economic difficulties not to be the result of excessive public expenditure, but of post-war deflation, the return to the gold standard, and the fall in world prices. An equitable solution should include taxation of holders of fixed-interest securities who had benefited from the fall in prices."

The cabinet decided to form a committee consisting of Ramsay MacDonald, Philip Snowden, Arthur Henderson, Jimmy Thomas and William Graham to consider the report. On 5th August, John Maynard Keynes wrote to MacDonald, describing the May Report as "the most foolish document I ever had the misfortune to read." He argued that the committee's recommendations clearly represented "an effort to make the existing deflation effective by bringing incomes down to the level of prices" and if adopted in isolation, they would result in "a most gross perversion of social justice". Keynes suggested that the best way to deal with the crisis was to leave the Gold Standard and devalue sterling. Two days later, Sir Ernest Harvey, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, wrote to Snowden to say that in the last four weeks the Bank had lost more than £60 million in gold and foreign exchange, in defending sterling. He added that there was almost no foreign exchange left.

The cabinet met on 19th August but they were unable to agree on Snowden's proposals. He warned that balancing the budget was the only way to restore confidence in sterling. Snowden argued that if his recommendations were not accepted, sterling would collapse. He added "that if sterling went the whole international financial structure would collapse, and there would be no comparison between the present depression and the chaos and ruin that would face us."

Ramsay MacDonald went to see George V about the economic crisis on 23rd August. He warned the King that several Cabinet ministers were likely to resign if he tried to cut unemployment benefit. MacDonald wrote in his diary: "King most friendly and expressed thanks and confidence. I then reported situation and at end I told him that after tonight I might be of no further use, and should resign with the whole Cabinet.... He said that he believed I was the only person who could carry the country through."

On 24th August 1931 MacDonald returned to the palace and told the King that he had the Cabinet's resignation in his pocket. The King replied that he hoped that MacDonald "would help in the formation of a National Government." He added that by "remaining at his post, his position and reputation would be much more enhanced than if he surrendered the Government of the country at such a crisis." Eventually, he agreed to form a National Government.

MacDonald returned to 10 Downing Street and called his final Labour Cabinet. He told them that he had changed his mind about resigning and that he agreed to form a National Government. Sidney Webb recorded in his diary: "He announced this very well, with great feeling, saying that he knew the cost, but could not refuse the King's request, that he would doubtless be denounced and ostracized, but could do no other." When the meeting was over, he asked Philip Snowden, Jimmy Thomas and John Sankey to stay behind and invited them to join the new government. All three agreed and they kept their old jobs. Other appointments included Stanley Baldwin (Lord President of the Council), Neville Chamberlain (Health), Samuel Hoare (Secretary of State for India), Herbert Samuel (Home Office), Philip Cunliffe-Lister (Board of Trade) and Lord Reading (Foreign Office).

Morgan Philips Price commented: "I found Members delighted that Ramsay Macdonald, Philip Snowden and J. H. Thomas had severed themselves from us by their action. We had got rid of the Right Wing without any effort on our part. No one trusted Mr Thomas and Philip Snowden was recognized to be a nineteenth-century Liberal with no longer any place amongst us. State action to remedy the economic crisis was anathema to him. As for Ramsay Macdonald, he was obviously losing his grip on affairs. He had no background of knowledge of economic and financial questions and was hopelessly at sea in a crisis like this. But many, if not most, of the Labour M.P.s thought that at an election we should win hands down."

The 1931 General Election was held on 27th October, 1931. MacDonald led an anti-Labour alliance made up of Conservatives and National Liberals. It was a disaster for the Labour Party with only 46 members winning their seats. Several leading Labour figures, including Morgan Philips Price, Arthur Henderson, John R. Clynes, Arthur Greenwood, Hastings Lees-Smith, Herbert Morrison, William Graham, Tom Shaw, Emanuel Shinwell, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, Hugh Dalton, Susan Lawrence, William Wedgwood Benn, Albert Alexander, Margaret Bondfield and Frederick Roberts, lost their seats.

Price became the Labour Party candidate for the Forest of Dean and won the seat in the 1935 General Election. He held the seat until the 1950 General Election when he switched to Gloucestershire West. He retired from the House of Commons in 1959. His memoirs, My Three Revolutions, was published in 1969.

Morgan Philips Price died on 23rd September, 1973.

On this day in 1899 Heinrich Blücher was born in Berlin. His parents were from the working-class and his mother was a laundress. As a young man he joined the Spartacus League, an organization formed by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. He was a gifted, as an orator and as a street fighter. In 1919 he took part in the failed German Revolution.

In 1919 the Spartacus League became the German Communist Party (KPD). Blücher became one of its first members. In 1922 the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) merged with the KPD. Members now included Paul Levi, Willie Munzenberg, Clara Zetkin, Ernst Toller, Walther Ulbricht, Julian Marchlewski, Ernst Thälmann, Hermann Duncker, Hugo Eberlein, Paul Frölich, Wilhelm Pieck, Franz Mehring, and Ernest Meyer. The KPD abandoned the goal of immediate revolution, and began to contest Reichstag elections, with some success. In the 1924 General Election the party won 62 seats compared to the 100 seats of the Social Democrat Party.

With Blücher, Hannah's world began anew in Paris. Because of who they were, it was still a world of Germans and Jews (a world that had ceased to exist in Germany but was kept alive in France) but it was new because after years of loneliness and disappointment Hannah discovered that love was still a possibility. Blücher was a working-class German leftist in exile; representative of the class of political enemies for whom the Nazis originally invented Dachau.

As a young man at the end of the First World War, he was a Spartacist - a militant revolutionary who fell into the ambit of the newly formed German Communist Party. He studied Marx and Engels and was effective, even gifted, as an orator and as a street fighter,

Ernst Thälmann, replaced Meyer as the Chairman of the KPD in 1925. Thälmann, a loyal supporter of Joseph Stalin, willingly put the KPD under the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Blücher objected to the Stalinization of the KPD and left the party in 1928. As Clara Zetkin pointed out in a letter to Nikolai Bukharin. "I feel completely alone and alien in this body (KPD), which has changed from being a living political organism into a dead mechanism, which on one side swallows orders in the Russian language and on the other spits them out in various languages, a mechanism which turns the mighty world historical meaning and content of the Russian revolution into the rules of the game for Pickwick Clubs."

Heinrich Blücher fell in love with Hannah Arendt in the spring of 1936. "Arendt was twenty-nine, Blücher thirty-seven... They fell in love almost at first sight. Both were still formally married but separated from their spouses.... Blücher came from a poor, non-Jewish Berlin working-class background. He was an autodidact who had gone to night school but never graduated... Their attraction was at once intellectual and erotic. Blücher was an autodidact but a highly learned one.... Arendt was fascinated by his intellect. Their relationship now ripened in an atmosphere of intense eroticism."

Dwight Macdonald would later describe Blücher's political identity as a "true, hopeless anarchist." Blücher remained friends with left-wing radicals but became increasingly preoccupied with the arts. Blücher became a close friends with Robert Gilbert, a Jewish artist (real name Robert Winterfeld) had fled from Nazi Germany in 1933. Gilbert, a left-wing songwriter, filmmaker, social critic and entertainer, introduced Blücher to Hanns Eisler and Bertolt Brecht.

In September, 1939, Blücher and all male German immigrants in France were deemed potential dangers to French security and were interred in camps in the provinces. He wrote to Arendt that: "As you can imagine, there are quite a few people here who think of nothing but their own personal destiny." However, because he had a loving partner he was able to cope with being in an internment camp: "I love you with all my heart... My beauty, what a gift of happiness it is to have this feeling, and to know that it will last a whole lifetime and will not change except to grow stronger."

Blücher was eventually released and the couple married on 16th January, 1940. At the beginning of May, with the French government expecting a German invasion, ordered that all Germans except the old, the young, and mothers of children report as enemy aliens to internment camps, the men at Stadion Buffalo and the women at the Velodrome d'Hiver. Arendt observed: "Contemporary history has created a new kind of human beings - the kind that are put into concentration camps by their foes and in internment camps by their friends."

The German Army invaded on 10th May, 1940, Arendt rightly predicted would soon be turned over to the Germans. She therefore decided to escape from the camp. Those that remained were later deported to Auschwitz. She walked for over 200 miles to Montauban, a meeting point for escapees. Blücher also escaped from his camp during a German air-raid. They were hidden by the parents of Daniel Cohn-Bendit until friends in United States managed to obtain emergency visas for the couple.

Heinrich Blücher and Hannah Arendt arrived in New York City by boat from Lisbon in May 1941. A refugee organization arranged for her to spend two months with an American family in Massachusetts. "The couple who took her in were very high-minded and puritanical; the wife allowed no smoking or drinking in the house... Yet Hannah was impressed by the couple, especially their intense feeling for the democratic political rights and responsibilities of American citizens"

On this day in 1907 women's campaigner Helen Taylor died.

Helen Taylor, the daughter of John Taylor, was born ion 31st July 1831. Her mother, Harriet Taylor, was active in the Unitarian Church and developed radical views on politics. Her parents became friendly with William Johnson Fox, a leading Unitarian minister and early supporter of women's rights.

Her family moved in radical circles and in 1830 Harriet Taylor met the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Taylor was attracted to Mill, the first man she had met who treated her as an intellectual equal. Mill was impressed with Taylor and asked her to read and comment on the latest book he was working on. Over the next few years they exchanged essays on issues such as marriage and women's rights. Those essays that have survived reveal that Taylor held more radical views than Mill on these subjects. She argued: "Public offices being open to them alike, all occupations would be divided between the sexes in their natural arrangements. Fathers would provide for their daughters in the same manner as their sons."

Harriet Taylor was attracted to the socialist philosophy that had been promoted by Robert Owen in books such as The Formation of Character (1813) and A New View of Society (1814). In her essays Taylor was especially critical of the degrading effect of women's economic dependence on men. Taylor thought this situation could only be changed by the radical reform of all marriage laws. Although Mill shared Taylor's belief in equal rights, he favoured laws that gave women equality rather than independence.

In 1833 Helen's mother negotiated a trial separation from her husband. She then spent six weeks with Mill in Paris. On their return Harriet moved to a house at Walton-on-Thames where John Start Mill visited her at weekends. Although Harriet Taylor and Mill claimed they were not having a sexual relationship, their behaviour scandalized their friends. As a result, the couple became socially isolated.

Helen Taylor was very interested in the theatre and from 1856 she took lessons from an experienced actress. She later acted in plays in Newcastle, Doncaster and Glasgow. Her mother suffered from tuberculosis and while in Avignon, seeking treatment for this condition in November, 1858, she died. Harriet Taylor and John Start Mill had been working on a book The Subjection of Women at the time.

Helen Taylor decided to give up her desire to become an actress and devoted herself to caring for her step-father, John Stuart Mill, acting both as his housekeeper and secretary. She also helped him to finish The Subjection of Women. The two worked closely together for the next fifteen years. In his autobiography Mill wrote that "Whoever, either now or hereafter, may think of me and my work I have done, must never forget that it is the product not of one intellect and conscience but of three, the least considerable of whom, and above all the least original, is the one whose name is attached to it."

Frances Power Cobbe commented that Mill's attitude towards Helen was "beautiful to witness, and a fine exemplification on his own theories of the rightful position of women". As well as helping Mill with his books and articles, Helen Taylor was active in the women's suffrage campaign. She was an original member of the Kensington Society that produced the first petition requesting votes for women.

In the 1865 General Election Helen's stepfather, John Stuart Mill was invited to stand as the Radical candidate for the Westminster seat in Parliament. Barbara Bodichon, Emily Davies and Bessie Rayner Parkes were enthusiastic supporters of his campaign as he spoke in favour of women having the vote. One politician campaigning against Mill claimed that "if any man but Mr Mill had put forward that opinion he would have been ridiculed and hooted by the press; but the press had not dared to do so with him."

John Stuart Mill won the seat. In the House of Commons Mill campaigned with Henry Fawcett and Peter Alfred Taylor for parliamentary reform and in 1866 presented the petition organised by Barbara Bodichon, Emily Davies, Elizabeth Garrett and Dorothea Beale in favour of women's suffrage. Mill, added an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act that would give women the same political rights as men.

During the debate on Mill's amendment, Edward Kent Karslake, the Conservative MP for Colchester, said in the House of Commons that the main reason he opposed the measure was that he had not met one woman in Essex who agreed with women's suffrage. Helen Taylor, Lydia Becker and Frances Power Cobbe, decided to take up this challenge and devised the idea of collecting signatures in Colchester for a petition that Karslake could then present to parliament. They found 129 women resident in the town willing to sign the petition and on 25th July, 1867, Karslake presented the list to parliament. Despite this petition the Mill amendment was defeated by 196 votes to 73.

In January 1867 she published anonymously an article, The Ladies Petition, in the Westminster Review. This later became a pamphlet, The Claims of Englishwomen to the Suffrage Constitutionally Considered. In the summer of 1867 Taylor, Frances Power Cobbe, Lydia Becker, Millicent Fawcett, Barbara Bodichon, Jessie Boucherett, Emily Davies, Francis Mary Buss, Dorothea Beale, Anne Clough, Lilias Ashworth Hallett, Louisa Smith, Alice Westlake, Katherine Hare, Harriet Cook, Elizabeth Garrett, Priscilla Bright McLaren and Margaret Bright Lucas joined together to establish the London Society for Women's Suffrage. In July she gave a £26 donation to the LSWS.

In December 1868, Taylor, resigned from the Manchester Society for Women's Suffrage in protest against the leadership of Lydia Becker. Helen Taylor gave her maiden speech in the suffrage cause at a meeting in the Hanover Rooms on 26th March, 1870. Catherine Winkworth wrote later: "Miss Helen Taylor made a most remarkable speech. She is a slight young woman, with long, thin, delicate features, clear dark eyes and dark hair, which she wears in long bands on her cheeks, fashionably dressed in slight mourning; speaks off the platform in a high, thin voice, very shyly with an embarrassed air; on the platform she was really eloquent." Another observer, Kate Amberley commented that it was "a long and much studied speech; it was good but too like acting."

Helen Taylor also took part in the agitation for women to be allowed to take part in local government and after the passing of the 1870 Education Act she became a candidate for office. In 1876, standing as a radical, Taylor was elected to the Southwark seat on the London School Board. In 1881 she joined the Social Democratic Federation.

In 1885 spoke on the same platform as Richard Pankhurst. His daughter, Sylvia Pankhurst, later revealed that her mother, Emmeline Pankhurst, was disturbed by the fact that she wore trousers during the meeting: "Mrs Pankhurst was distressed that her husband should be seen walking with the lady in this garb, and feared that his gallantry in doing so... would cost him many votes."

In her later years she was cared for by her niece, Mary Taylor. She later recalled that one of her last actions was "making petticoats for the wives and children of the unemployed in West Ham".

On this day in 1914 Christabel Pankhurst expels Sylvia Pankhurst from the WSPU. Sylvia became concerned about the increase in the violence used by the Women's Social and Political Union. This view was shared by her younger sister, Adela Pankhurst. She later told fellow member, Helen Fraser: "I knew all too well that after 1910 we were rapidly losing ground. I even tried to tell Christabel this was the case, but unfortunately she took it amiss." After arguing with Emmeline Pankhurst about this issue she left the WSPU.

In 1913, Sylvia Pankhurst , with the help of Keir Hardie, Julia Scurr, Mary Phillips, Norah Smyth, Millie Lansbury, Eveline Haverfield, Maud Joachim, Lilian Dove-Wilcox, Jessie Stephen, Nellie Cressall and George Lansbury, established the East London Federation of Suffragettes (ELF). An organisation that combined socialism with a demand for women's suffrage it worked closely with the Independent Labour Party. Pankhurst also began production of a weekly paper for working-class women called The Women's Dreadnought. As June Hannam has pointed out: "The ELF was successful in gaining support from working women and also from dock workers. The ELF organized suffrage demonstrations and its members carried out acts of militancy. Between February 1913 and August 1914 Sylvia was arrested eight times. After the passing of the Prisoners' Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Act of 1913 (known as the Cat and Mouse Act) she was frequently released for short periods to recuperate from hunger striking and was carried on a stretcher by supporters in the East End so that she could attend meetings and processions. When the police came to re-arrest her this usually led to fights with members of the community which encouraged Sylvia to organize a people's army to defend suffragettes and dock workers. She also drew on East End traditions by calling for rent strikes to support the demand for the vote."

Emmeline Pankhurst and Christabel Pankhurst objected to the formation of the East London Federation of Suffragettes and by the end of 1913 Sylvia was on the verge of being expelled from the WSPU. Christabel, who was living in exile, should meet with her in Paris. "So insistent were the messages… I agreed to go… I was smuggled into a car and driven to Harwich. I insisted that Norah Smyth, who had become financial secretary of the Federation, should go with me to represent our members… Like me, she desired to avoid a breach. Dogged in her fidelities, and by temperament unable to express herself under emotion, she was silent… She (Christabel) urged, a working women's movement was of no value; working women were the weakest portion of the sex: how could it be otherwise? Their lives were too hard, their education too meagre to equip them for the contest." Christabel added: "You have your own ideas. We do not want that; we want all our women to take their instructions and walk in step like an army!". 

Christabel also complained about ELF's close links with the Labour Party and the trade union movement. She especially objected to her attending meetings addressed by George Lansbury and James Larkin and her friendship with Keir Hardie and Henry Harben. In view of all this, Christabel concluded, Sylvia's East London suffragettes had to become an entirely separate organization, having proven their inability to operate in compliance with WSPU policy.

On this day in 1928 Field Marshal Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, died. Haig, the eleventh child of John Haig, the head of the successful whisky distilling company, was born in Edinburgh on 19th June 1861. Haig was sent to Clifton College in 1875 and entered Brasenose College five years later. At Oxford University he led an active sporting and social life but left without taking a degree.

Haig went to the Royal Military College at Sandhurst in 1884. His biographer, Trevor Wilson, has argued: "There he devoted himself to his work, developed a reputation for being aloof and taciturn, passed out first in his year, and was awarded the Anson memorial sword. He also made good progress as a horseman and polo player (he had played polo at Oxford), both important attributes for a cavalry officer."

In 1885 Haig was commissioned into the 7th Queen's Hussars. His regiment was sent to India and after three years he was promoted to the rank of captain and was sent to the headquarters of the Bombay Army at Maharashtra. In 1893 he applied to enter the Camberley Staff College, but was rejected after a poor performance in the compulsory mathematics examination. Soon afterwards Haig was appointed aide-de-camp to the inspector-general of cavalry.

In 1896 he finally secured entry to the Staff College, by nomination. Other officers at the college at this time included William Robertson, Edmund Allenby, Archibald Murray and George Milne. Robertson's biographer, David R. Woodward, has argued that he came under the influence of George Henderson who had made a detailed study of Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War: "Robertson's intellectual mentor, the military theorist George F. R. Henderson, emphasized the concentration of forces in the primary theatre of the enemy in order to overwhelm his main force in a decisive battle. These principles served as a bond between Robertson and Haig when the two men dominated British military policy."

In 1897 Major General Horatio Kitchener, commander-in-chief of the British Army in Egypt, decided to attempt the reconquest of the Sudan. Kitchener applied to London for a group of special service officers to participate in his largely Egyptian force. George Henderson suggested that Haig should be sent to serve under Kitchener. In 1898 he received his first experience of warfare when he took part in the Battle of Omdurman.

Haig returned to Britain to become a brigade major at Aldershot. His commander was Major-General John French. In June 1899, French appointed Haig as his staff officer and later that year they went to South Africa to serve in the Boer War. As Trevor Wilson has pointed out: "French and Haig were then directed to Cape Town to take charge of their division, which was in the process of disembarking. They left Ladysmith amid a hail of gunfire in the last train to get away before the Boer trap closed. There followed, in December 1899, a month of disasters for nearly all British units. French's cavalry - again aided by Haig's staff work - provided an exception, holding at bay a numerically superior Boer force."

In 1900 Haig was placed in charge of a cavalry division that had to deal with the Boers who resorted to guerrilla warfare. He was also directed to capture such leading opponents such as General Jan Smuts. On his return to England he argued that cavalry would be of greater rather than less importance in coming conflicts whereas infantry and artillery would "only likely to be really effective against raw troops".

Lord Kitchener had been impressed with Haig and in 1903, when he became commander-in-chief in India, he appointed him his inspector-general of cavalry. When Haig became major-general he was the youngest officer of that rank in the British Army. Haig became responsibe for training the Indian Cavalry.

On 11th July, 1905, Haig married Dorothy Maud Vivian in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace. Vivian, the daughter of Hussey Crespigny Vivian, third Baron Vivian, and a former maid of honour to Queen Victoria and then to Queen Alexandra. Over the next few years she gave birth to three daughters and a son.

These royal connections brought him to the attention of Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher. When R. B. Haldane became Secretary of State for War in 1905, Esher persuaded him to appoint Haig as director of military training. In 1906 Halsane created the Imperial General Staff under the leadership of Haig. The following year Haldane said "the basis of our whole military fabric must be the development of the idea of a real national army, formed by the people." This became known as the Territorial Army.

According to Haldane's biographer, Colin Mathew: "Within a year there were 9,313 officers and 259,463 other ranks in the Territorial Force... His hopes that the officer training corps would act as a catalyst for a greater union between army and society were improbable, but in the officer training corps (later, in schools, the combined cadet force) he created an organization of profound significance to the ethos of British public school education for much of the twentieth century." Colonel Charles Repington, the military correspondent of The Times, and a staunch critic of the Liberal Party, described Haldane as "the best Secretary of State we have had at the War Office so far as brain and ability are concerned" and generally supported his military reforms.

Trevor Wilson argues: "Haig also aided in establishing the Imperial General Staff, under whose guidance the self-governing dominions modelled both their military establishments and their training procedures on British practices, and so readied themselves to participate alongside Britain's forces in the event of an international war."

In 1909 Haig was appointed as chief of staff in India. The following year he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1911 R. B. Haldane arranged for Haig to take control of the 1st Army Corps of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) based in Aldershot.

On the outbreak of the First World War Haig was summoned by Herbert Henry Asquith to attend the first war council. Also present was General John French, the commander-in-chief of the BEF. At the meeting French argued that the BEF should be sent to Antwerp to help the Belgians in the defence of that city. Haig disagreed, and urged following the pre-war arrangement whereby the BEF would take its place on the left of the French Army and act in unison with it in support of Belgium.

Asquith accepted Haig's argument and Haig left for France on 15th August. Haig commanded his forces at Mons and was praised for his Ypres campaign in 1914. Later in the same year, Haig was promoted to full general and was given command of the recently enlarged BEF, under the supreme command of General John French.

The military historian, Llewellyn Woodward, has arged: "His knowledge of his profession was sound and solid; he was a man of strong nerve, resolute, patient, somewhat cold and reserved in temper, unlikely to be thrown off his balance either by calamity or success. He reached opinions slowly, and held to them. He made up his mind in 1915 that the war could be won on the Western Front, and only on the Western Front. He acted on this view, and, at the last, he was right, though it is open to argument not only that victory could have been won sooner elsewhere but that Haig's method of winning it was clumsy, tragically expensive of life, and based for too long on a misreading of the facts." Woodward has also questioned the morality of the policy of attrition. He described it as the "killing Germans until the German army was worn down and exhausted". Woodward argued that it "was not only wasteful and, intellectually, a confession of impotence; it was also extremely dangerous. The Germans might counter Haig's plan by allowing him to wear down his own army in a series of unsuccessful attacks against a skilful defence."

In December 1915, Douglas Haig was appointed commander in chief of the BEF. His close friend, John Charteris, was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general and was given the title of Chief Intelligence Officer at GHQ. This created conflict between Haig and the War Office. Christopher Andrew, the author of Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (1985): "Haig installed his own man, Brigadier John Charteris, with Kirke as his deputy. Charteris was a determined optimist and his intelligence analyses were soon in conflict with the more realistic estimates produced by Macdonogh in the War Office. Though Kirke's sympathies were with Macdonogh, Haig sided with Charteris". Haig claimed that Macdonogh's views caused "many in authority to take a pessimistic outlook, when a contrary view, based on equally good information, would go far to help the nation onto Victory."

Major Desmond Morton served as one of Haig's adjutants. He later recalled: "He (Haig) hated being told any new information, however irrefutable, which militated against his preconceived ideas or beliefs. Hence his support for the desperate John Charteris, who was incredibly bad as head of GHQ intelligence, who always concealed bad news, or put it in an agreeable light."

General William Robertson eventually got approval for a major offensive on the Western Front in the summer of 1916. The Battle of the Somme was planned as a joint French and British operation. The idea originally came from the French Commander-in-Chief, Joseph Joffre and was accepted by General Haig, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) commander, despite his preference for a large attack in Flanders. Although Joffre was concerned with territorial gain, it was also an attempt to destroy German manpower.

At first Joffre intended for to use mainly French soldiers but the German attack on Verdun in February 1916 turned the Somme offensive into a large-scale British diversionary attack. General Haig now took over responsibility for the operation and with the help of General Henry Rawlinson, came up with his own plan of attack. Haig's strategy was for a eight-day preliminary bombardment that he believed would completely destroy the German forward defences.

Haig later pointed out in his book, Dispatches (1919): "The enemy's position to be attacked was of a very formidable character, situated on a high, undulating tract of ground. The first and second systems each consisted of several lines of deep trenches, well provided with bomb-proof shelters and with numerous communication trenches connecting them. The front of the trenches in each system was protected by wire entanglements, many of them in two belts forty yards broad, built of iron stakes, interlaced with barbed-wire, often almost as thick as a man's finger. Defences of this nature could only be attacked with the prospect of success after careful artillery preparation."

General Rawlinson was was in charge of the main attack and his Fourth Army were expected to advance towards Bapaume. To the north of Rawlinson, General Edmund Allenby and the British Third Army were ordered to make a breakthrough with cavalry standing by to exploit the gap that was expected to appear in the German front-line. Further south, General Fayolle was to advance with the French Sixth Army towards Combles.

General Haig used 750,000 men (27 divisions) against the German front-line (16 divisions). However, the bombardment failed to destroy either the barbed-wire or the concrete bunkers protecting the German soldiers. This meant that the Germans were able to exploit their good defensive positions on higher ground when the British and French troops attacked at 7.30 on the morning of the 1st July. The BEF suffered 58,000 casualties (a third of them killed), therefore making it the worse day in the history of the British Army.

Douglas Haig was not disheartened by these heavy losses on the first day and ordered General Henry Rawlinson to continue making attacks on the German front-line. A night attack on 13th July did achieve a temporary breakthrough but German reinforcements arrived in time to close the gap. Haig believed that the Germans were close to the point of exhaustion and continued to order further attacks expected each one to achieve the necessary breakthrough. Although small victories were achieved, for example, the capture of Pozieres on 23rd July, these gains could not be successfully followed up.

Colonel Charles Repington, the military correspondent of The Times, had a meeting with Haig during the offensive at the Somme: "He explained things on the map. It is staff work rather than generalship which is necessary for this kind of fighting. He laid great stress on his raids, and he showed me on a map where these had taken place. He said that he welcomed criticisms, but when I mentioned the criticisms which I had heard of his misuse of artillery on July 1, he did not appear to relish it, and denied its truth. As he was not prepared to talk of things of real interest, I said very little, and left him to do the talking. I also had a strong feeling that the tactics of July 1 had been bad. I don't know which of us was the most glad to be rid of the other."

Christopher Andrew, the author of Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (1985), has argued that Brigadier-General John Charteris, the Chief Intelligence Officer at GHQ. was partly responsible for this disaster: "Charteris's intelligence reports throughout the five-month battle were designed to maintain Haig's morale. Though one of the intelligence officer's duties may be to help maintain his commander's morale, Charteris crossed the frontier between optimism and delusion." As late as September 1916, Charteris was telling Haig: "It is possible that the Germans may collapse before the end of the year."

On 15th September General Alfred Micheler and the Tenth Army joined the battle in the south at Flers-Courcelette. Despite using tanks for the first time, Micheler's 12 divisions gained only a few kilometres. Whenever the weather was appropriate, General Haig ordered further attacks on German positions at the Somme and on the 13th November the BEF captured the fortress at Beaumont Hamel. However, heavy snow forced Haig to abandon his gains.

Robertson's biographer, David R. Woodward, has pointed out: "British losses on the first day of the Somme offensive - almost 60,000 casualties - shocked Robertson. Haig's one-step breakthrough attempt was the antithesis of Robertson's cautious approach of exhausting the enemy with artillery and limited advances. Although he secretly discussed more prudent tactics with Haig's subordinates he defended the BEF's operations in London. The British offensive, despite its limited results, was having a positive effect in conjunction with the other allied attacks under way against the central powers. The continuation of Haig's offensive into the autumn, however, was not so easy to justify."

Captain Charles Hudson was one of those officers who took part in the battle. He later wrote: "It is difficult to see how Haig, as Commander-in-Chief living in the atmosphere he did, so divorced from the fighting troops, could fulfil the tremendous task that was laid upon him effectively. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now that the enormous casualties were justified. Throughout the war huge bombardments failed again and again yet we persisted in employing the same hopeless method of attack. Many other methods were possible, some were in fact used but only half-heartedly."

Private James Lovegrove was also highly critical of Haig's tactics: "The military commanders had no respect for human life. General Douglas Haig... cared nothing about casualties. Of course, he was carrying out government policy, because after the war he was knighted and given a lump sum and a massive life-pension. I blame the public schools who bred these ego maniacs. They should never have been in charge of men. Never."

With the winter weather deteriorating General Haig now brought an end to the Somme Offensive. Since the 1st July, the British has suffered 420,000 casualties. The French lost nearly 200,000 and it is estimated that German casualties were in the region of 500,000. Allied forces gained some land but it reached only 12km at its deepest points. Haig wrote at the time: "The results of the Somme fully justify confidence in our ability to master the enemy's power of resistance."

Encouraged by the gains made at the offensive at Messines in June 1917, Haig became convinced that the German Army was now close to collapse and once again made plans for a major offensive to obtain the necessary breakthrough. The opening attack at Passchendaele was carried out by General Hubert Gough and the British Fifth Army with General Herbert Plumer and the Second Army joining in on the right and General Francois Anthoine and the French First Army on the left. After a 10 day preliminary bombardment, with 3,000 guns firing 4.25 million shells, the British offensive started at Ypres a 3.50 am on 31st July.

Allied attacks on the German front-line continued despite very heavy rain that turned the Ypres lowlands into a swamp. The situation was made worse by the fact that the British heavy bombardment had destroyed the drainage system in the area. This heavy mud created terrible problems for the infantry and the use of tanks became impossible.

As William Beach Thomas, a journalist working for The Daily Mail, pointed out: "Floods of rain and a blanket of mist have doused and cloaked the whole of the Flanders plain. The newest shell-holes, already half-filled with soakage, are now flooded to the brim. The rain has so fouled this low, stoneless ground, spoiled of all natural drainage by shell-fire, that we experienced the double value of the early work, for today moving heavy material was extremely difficult and the men could scarcely walk in full equipment, much less dig. Every man was soaked through and was standing or sleeping in a marsh. It was a work of energy to keep a rifle in a state fit to use."

Lieutenant Robert Sherriff was a junior officer at Passchendaele: "The living conditions in our camp were sordid beyond belief. The cookhouse was flooded, and most of the food was uneatable. There was nothing but sodden biscuits and cold stew. The cooks tried to supply bacon for breakfast, but the men complained that it smelled like dead men."

The German Fourth Army held off the main British advance and restricted the British to small gains on the left of the line. Haig now called off the attacks and did not resume the offensive until the 26th September. An attack on 4th October enabled the British forces to take possession of the ridge east of Ypres. Despite the return of heavy rain, Haig ordered further attacks towards the Passchendaele Ridge. Attacks on the 9th and 12th October were unsuccessful. As well as the heavy mud, the advancing British soldiers had to endure mustard gas attacks.

Three more attacks took place in October and on the 6th November the village of Passchendaele was finally taken by British and Canadian infantry. The offensive cost the British Army about 310,000 casualties and Haig was severely criticised for continuing with the attacks long after the operation had lost any real strategic value.

Lieutenant Bernard Montgomery was also highly critical of his senior officers on the Western Front during the First World War. "The higher staffs were out of touch with the regimental officers and with the troops. The former lived in comfort, which became greater as the distance of their headquarters behind the lines increased. There was no harm in this provided there was touch and sympathy between the staff and the troops. This was often lacking. The frightful casualties appalled me. There is a story of Sir Douglas Haig's Chief of Staff who was to return to England after the heavy fighting during the winter of 1917-18 on the Passchendaele front. Before leaving he said he would like to visit the Passchendaele Ridge and see the country. When he saw the mud and the ghastly conditions under which the soldiers had fought and died." Apparently he was upset by what he saw and said: "Do you mean to tell me that the soldiers had to fight under such conditions? Why was I never told about this before?"

Haig's biographer, Trevor Wilson, has defended his tactics during the First World War: "Haig's critics have rarely acknowledged the formidable problems which confronted him. He was required - by his political masters, by a vociferous media, and by the determination of the British public - not just to hold the line but to get on and win the war: that is, to carry the struggle to the enemy and drive the invader from the soil of France and Belgium. Yet consequent upon the relative equality of manpower and industrial resources between the two sides, and upon the clear advantages which developments in weaponry had bestowed upon the defender, there was no sure path to victory on offer, and any offensive operation was bound to bring heavy loss of life upon the attacking forces. Nor do Haig's critics usually notice the respects in which he responded positively to the changing face of warfare. For example, he embraced with enthusiasm both new devices of battle, such as tanks and aircraft, and new methods of employing established weaponry, such as striking innovations for increasing the effectiveness of artillery: aerial photography, sound-ranging, and flash-spotting."

After the failure of British tanks in the thick mud at Passchendaele, Colonel John Fuller, chief of staff to the Tank Corps, suggested a massed raid on dry ground between the Canal du Nord and the St Quentin Canal. General Julian Byng, commander of the Third Army, accepted Fuller's plan, although it was originally vetoed by Haig. However, he changed his mind and decided to launch the Cambrai Offensive.

In September 1917 a munity took place at Etaples. Private William Brooks was one of those who was present at these disturbances: "There was a big riot by the Australians at a place called Etaples. They called it collective indiscipline, what it was was mutiny. It went on for days. I think a couple of military police got killed. Field Marshall Haig would have shot the leaders but dared not of course because they were Aussies. Haig's nickname was the butcher. He'd think nothing of sending thousands of men to certain death. The utter waste and disregard for human life and human suffering by the so-called educated classes who ran the country. What a wicked waste of life. I'd hate to be in their shoes when they face their Maker."

Brigadier-General John Charteris, the Chief Intelligence Officer at GHQ was involved in the planning of the offensive at Cambrai in November 1917. Lieutenant James Marshall-Cornwall discovered captured documents that three German divisions from the Russian front had arrived to strengthen the Cambrai sector. Charteris told Marshall-Cornwall: "This is a bluff put up by the Germans to deceive us. I am sure the units are still on the Russian front... If the commander in chief were to think that the Germans had reinforced this sector, it might shake his confidence in our success."

Haig, who was not given this information, ordered a massed tank attack at Artois. Launched at dawn on 20th November, without preliminary bombardment, the attack completely surprised the German Army defending that part of the Western Front. Employing 476 tanks, six infantry and two cavalry divisions, the British Third Army gained over 6km in the first day. Progress towards Cambrai continued over the next few days but on the 30th November, 29 German divisions launched a counter-offensive.

By the time that fighting came to an end on 7th December, 1917, German forces had regained almost all the ground it lost at the start of the Cambrai Offensive. During the two weeks of fighting, the British suffered 45,000 casualties. Although it is estimated that the Germans lost 50,000 men, Haig considered the offensive as a failure and reinforced his doubts about the ability of tanks to win the war.

An official inquiry carried out after the military defeat at Cambrai blamed Brigadier-General John Charteris for "intelligence failures". The Secretary of State for War, the Earl of Derby, insisted that Haig sacked Charteris and in January 1918, he was appointed as deputy director of transportation in France. Haig wrote at the time: "He (Charteris) seems almost a sort of Dreyfus in the eyes of our War Office authorities."

The journalist, Henry Hamilton Fyfe, met Haig several times during the war: "Haig was, in truth, at close quarters very disappointing. He looked the part. His face on a postcard was not less impressive than Kitchener's. But - his face was his fortune. He had little general intelligence, no imagination.... Haig was as shy as a schoolgirl. He was afraid of newspaper men - afraid of any men but those he gathered round him, and they were mostly like himself. If ever the history of the war is written as frankly as that of Napoleon's campaign has been, Haig will be held accountable for the appalling slaughter in the Somme battles and in Flanders, caused by his flinging masses of men against positions far too strong to be carried by assault."

In 1918 Haig took charge of the successful British advances on the Western Front which led to an Allied victory later that year. John Buchan wrote: "When the last great enemy attack came he (Haig) took the main shock with a quiet resolution; when the moment arrived for the advance he never fumbled. He broke through the Hindenburg line in spite of the doubts of the British Cabinet, because he believed that only thus could the War be ended in time to save civilisation. He made the decision alone - one of the finest proofs of moral courage in the history of war. Haig cannot enter the small circle of the greater captains, but it may be argued that in the special circumstances of the campaign his special qualities were the ones most needed - patience, sobriety, balance of temper, unshakable fortitude."

After the war Haig was posted as commander in chief of home forces until his retirement in 1921. Haig was granted £100,000 by the British government. This did not go down well with those soldiers who were finding it difficult to find work during this period. George Coppard wrote: "During this time the government, in the flush of victory, were busily engaged in fixing the enormous sums to be voted as gratuities to the high-ranking officers who had won the war for them. Heading the formidable list were Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig and Admiral Sir David Beatty. For doing the jobs for which they were paid, each received a tax-free golden handshake of £100,000 (a colossal sum then), an earldom and, I believe, an estate to go with it."

Haig devoted the rest of his life to the welfare of ex-servicemen via the Royal British Legion. He was made Earl Haig in 1919 and then Baron Haig of Bemersyde in 1921. Trevor Wilson has pointed out: "These united existing associations of former servicemen in a single body for each country, and Haig became president of both organizations. And he accepted chairmanship of the United Services Fund, formed to administer for the benefit of former soldiers and their families the large profits made during the war by army canteens. At the time these bodies constituted between them the largest benevolent organization ever formed in Britain."

In the 1920s Haig was severely criticised for the tactics used at offensives such as the one at the Somme. This included the prime minister of the time, David Lloyd George: "It is not too much to say that when the Great War broke out our Generals had the most important lessons of their art to learn. Before they began they had much to unlearn. Their brains were cluttered with useless lumber, packed in every niche and corner. Some of it was never cleared out to the end of the War. They knew nothing except by hearsay about the actual fighting of a battle under modern conditions. Haig ordered many bloody battles in this War. He only took part in two. He never even saw the ground on which his greatest battles were fought, either before or during the fight. The tale of these battles constitutes a trilogy, illustrating the unquestionable heroism that will never accept defeat and the inexhaustible vanity that will never admit a mistake."

Duff Cooper, who was commissioned by the Haig family to write his official biography, argued: "There are still those who argue that the Battle of the Somme should never have been fought and that the gains were not commensurate with the sacrifice. There exists no yardstick for the measurement of such events, there are no returns to prove whether life has been sold at its market value. There are some who from their manner of reasoning would appear to believe that no battle is worth fighting unless it produces an immediately decisive result which is as foolish as it would be to argue that in a prize fight no blow is worth delivering save the one that knocks the opponent out. As to whether it were wise or foolish to give battle on the Somme on the first of July, 1916, there can surely be only one opinion. To have refused to fight then and there would have meant the abandonment of Verdun to its fate and the breakdown of the co-operation with the French."

It seemed that Haig had not learnt the lessons of the First World War. In 1926 he wrote: "I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse - the well-bred horse - as you have ever done in the past."

Douglas Haig died suddenly of heart failure, at 21 Prince's Gate, London, on 29th January 1928. He was accorded a state funeral in Westminster Abbey. He was buried at Dryburgh Abbey, near Bemersyde, in the Scottish Borders.

On this day in 1944 journalist William Allen White died. White was born in Emporia, Kansas, on 10th February, 1868. After graduating from the Kansas State University he became a journalist. He worked for various newspapers in Kansas before purchasing the Emporia Gazette in 1895. White edited this small-town newspaper for the next forty-nine years.

A staunch Republican, White gave his support to William McKinley (1897-1901), Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and William Taft (1909-1913). However, White, switched his support to Roosevelt and the Progressive Party in the last presidential election before the First World War. During the war he backed Woodrow Wilson and his policy of internationalism.

White returned to the Republicans after the war and campaigned for Herbert Hoover against Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, he did support most of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. White was an opponent of racial intolerance and played an important role in limiting the influence of the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas. White published several books, including an account of leading politicians, Masks in a Pageant (1928) and biography of Calvin Coolidge, entitled, A Puritan in Babylon (1933).

White was a supporter of intervention in the Second World War and in May 1940 he established the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. White gave an interview to the Chicago Daily News where he argued: "Here is a life and death struggle for every principle we cherish in America: For freedom of speech, of religion, of the ballot and of every freedom that upholds the dignity of the human spirit... Here all the rights that common man has fought for during a thousand years are menaced... The time has come when we must throw into the scales the entire moral and economic weight of the United States on the side of the free peoples of Western Europe who are fighting the battle for a civilized way of life." It was not long before White's organization had 300 chapters nationwide.

Other members of the CDAAA included Clark M. Eichelberger (National Director), Adlai Stevenson, John J. Pershing, Claude Pepper and Philip Dunne. Members of the CDAAA argued that by advocating American military materiel support of Britain was the best way to keep the United States out of the war in Europe. The CDAAA disagreed strongly with the America First Committee, the main pressure group supporting complete neutrality and non-intervention in the war.

The main concern of the CDAAA was to “Aid the Allies.” However, they also adopted several concrete goals: the sale of destroyers to Great Britain; the release by the U.S. government of Flying Fortresses, pursuit planes, and mosquito boats to Great Britain; the use of convoys to safely escort Allied supplies; and the revision of the 1935 Neutrality Actto arm U.S. ships for defense against Axis attacks.

The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies played an important role in the passing of the Lend-Lease Act on 11th March, 1941. The legislation gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lend equipment to any country to help it defend itself against the Axis powers. A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion.

The CDAAA refused to support military intervention in the war. William Stephenson as the head of the British Security Coordination (BSC), found this frustrating and he encouraged William Donovan and Allen W. Dulles, with the support of BSC agent, Sydney Morrell, to establish the pro-intervention Fight for Freedom (FFF) group in April 1941.

William Allen White died in Emporia on 31st January, 1944. His memoirs, The Autobiography of William Allen White, that was published after his death, won the Pulitzer Prize.

On this day in 1946 Harry L. Hopkins died of cancer.

Harry Lloyd Hopkins was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on 17th August, 1890. After graduating from Grinnell College in 1912 he became a social worker in New York City. He was also active in the Democratic Party and a strong supporter of Alfred Smith.

In 1931 Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Hopkins as the executive director of the New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration. The historian, William E. Leuchtenburg, has argued: "Harry Hopkins... directed relief operations under Roosevelt in Albany. For a social worker, he was an odd sort. He belonged to no church, had been divorced and analyzed, liked race horses and women, was given to profanity and wisecracking, and had little patience with moralists... A small-town Iowan, he had the sallow complexion of a boy who had been reared in a big-city pool hall... He talked to reporters - often out of the side of his mouth - through thick curls of cigarette smoke, his tall, lean body sprawled over his chair, his face wry and twisted, his eyes darting and suspicious, his manner brusque, iconclastic, almost deliberately rude and outspoken."

When Roosevelt became president he recruited Hopkins to implement his various social welfare programs. As John C. Lee has pointed out: "On the whole, it is apparent that the mission of the Civil Works Administrator had been accomplished by 15th February 1934. His program had put over four million persons to work, thereby directly benefiting probably twelve million people otherwise dependent upon direct relief. The program put some seven hundred million dollars into general circulation. Such losses as occurred were negligible, on a percentage basis, and even those losses were probably added to the purchasing power of the country."

Frances Perkins later recalled: "Hopkins became not only Roosevelt's relief administrator but his general assistant as no one had been able to be. There was a temperamental sympathy between the men which made their relationship extremely easy as well as faithful and productive. Roosevelt was greatly enriched by Hopkins knowledge, ability, and humane attitude toward all facets of life."

The artist, Peggy Bacon met Hopkins during this period: "Pale urban-American type, emanating an aura of chilly cynicism and defeatest irony like a moony, melanchology newsboy selling papers on a cold night." Robert Sherwood, one of President Roosevelt's closest advisors, described him as "a profoundly shrewd and faintly ominous man."

The journalist, Raymond Gram Swing, became a close friend and argued in his book, Good Evening (1964): "One of my friendliest sources in the government was Harry Hopkins, who never was too busy to answer the telephone or see me in an emergency.... The public distrusted him for being a professional social worker who suddenly came to execute high government policy under the New Deal. That the policies he helped create turned out to be beneficial and preserved the American way of life, free enterprise included, will in time be recognized."

Harry L. Hopkins worked for the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (1933-35) and the Works Projects Administration (1935-38). In a speech in 1936 Hopkins argued: "I believe the days of letting people live in misery, of being rock-bottom destitute, of children being hungry, of moralizing about rugged individualism in the light of modern facts - I believe those days are over in America. They have gone, and we are going forward in full belief that our economic system does not have to force people to live in miserable squalor in dirty houses, half fed, half clothed, and lacking decent medical care." As head of the WPA Hopkins employed more than 3 million people and was responsible for the building of highways, bridges, public buildings and parks.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized Hopkins to set up the Civil Works Administration (CWA). William E. Leuchtenburg, the author of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963), has pointed out: "CWA was a federal operation from top to bottom; CWA workers were on the federal payroll. The agency took half its workers from relief rolls; the other half were people who needed jobs, but who did not have to demonstrate their poverty by submitting to a means test. CWA did not give a relief stipend but paid minimum wages. Hopkins, called on to mobilize in one winter almost as many men as had served in the armed forces in World War I, had to invent jobs for four million men and women in thirty days and put them to work. By mid-January, at its height, the CWA employed 4,230,000 persons."

During the four months of its existence, the CWA built or improved some 500,000 miles of roads, 40,000 schools, over 3,500 playgrounds and athletic fields, and 1,000 airports. The CWA employed 50,000 teachers to keep rural schools open and to teach adult education classes in the cities. The CWA also hired 3,000 artists and writers. It has been estimated that the CWA put a billion dollars of purchasing power into the sagging economy.

Roosevelt became concerned about creating a permanent class of people on relief work. He told Hopkins: "We must be careful it does not become a habit with the country... We must not take the position that we are going to have permanent depression in this country, and it is very important that we have somebody to say that quite forcefully to these people." Despite the protest of political figures such as Robert LaFollette and Bronson Cutting, the program came to an end in March, 1934.

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration now took up the relief burden again. It continued the CWA's unfinished work projects. FERA also erected five thousand public buildings and seven thousand bridges, cleared streams, dredged rivers and terraced land. FERA also employed teachers and over 1,500,000 adults were taught to read and write. It also ran nursery schools for children from low-income families, and helped 100,000 students to attend college.

By 1935 a total of $3,000,000,000 was distributed. Most of this money went to Home Relief Bureaus and Departments of Welfare for Poor Relief. Franklin D. Roosevelt felt he had little to show for this money. The Great Depression continued and over 20 million men were still receiving public assistance. He wrote to Edward House in November, 1934: "What I am seeking is the abolition of relief altogether. I cannot say so out loud yet but I hope to be able to substitute work for relief."

In January, 1935, Roosevelt proposed a gigantic program of emergency public employment, which would give work to 3,500,000 people without work. Roosevelt told Congress that relief was "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit... I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, a market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up papers in the public parks. The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

The Works Projects Administration (WPA) was established in April 1935. Harold Ickes wanted to head the agency. He argued that Harry Hopkins was an irresponsible spender and was not "priming the pump" but "just turning on the fire-plug". Ickes wanted the money spent on heavy capital expenditures whereas Hopkins advocated putting to work as many men as he could who were presently on relief. Roosevelt's main objective was to reduce the numbers on relief and he gave Hopkins overall control of the WPA.

In 1935 the WPA spent $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of GDP). The main objective was to provide one paid job for all families in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment.Over the next few years the WPA built more than 2,500 hospitals, 5,900 school buildings, 1,000 airport landing fields, and nearly 13,000 playgrounds. At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men (and some women).

Harry L. Hopkins also worked as Secretary of Commerce (1938-40). During the early stages of the Second World War he was Roosevelt's personal envoy to Britain. He was also a member of the War Production Board and served as Roosevelt's special assistant (1942-45). William Leahy worked closely with Hopkins: "Hopkins had an excellent mind. His manner of approach was direct and nobody could fool him, not even Churchill. He was never influenced by a person's rank. Roosevelt trusted him implicitly and Hopkins never betrayed that trust. The range of his activities covered all manner of civilian affairs - politics, war production, diplomatic matters - and, on many occasions, military affairs.... By his brilliant mind, his loyalty, and his selfless devotion to Franklin Roosevelt in helping carry on the war, Harry Hopkins soon erased completely any previous misgivings I might have held."

Raymond Gram Swing has pointed out: "It was his position as President Roosevelt's chief assistant in World War II that, in particular, needs to be better appreciated and valued. He was not Mr. Roosevelt's closest friend, for the President of the United States does not have friends in the true sense of the word. He cannot have loyalty to individuals, since he has placed his loyalty to the country first. And to be his first assistant calls for humility as well as devotion, and an ability almost on a par with his leader's. In the innumerable conferences Harry Hopkins attended abroad as the President's emissary, he was blunt of speech, adroit of mind, and dedicated to the requirements of victory."

Hopkins became involved in controversy while at the Yalta Conference. The journalist, Drew Pearson, claimed that it was agreed that the Red Army should be the first military force to enter Berlin. Hopkins issued a statement on 23rd April, 1945: "There was no agreement made at Yalta whatever that the Russians should enter Berlin first. Indeed, there was no discussion of that whatever. The Chiefs of Staff had agreed with the Russian Chiefs of Staff and Stalin on the general strategy which was that both of us were going to push as hard as we could. It is equally untrue that General Bradley paused on the Elbe River at the request of the Russians so that the Russians could break through to Berlin first."

On the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt Hopkins helped arrange the Potsdam Conference for Harry S. Truman but retired from public life soon afterwards. Hopkins told his friend, Robert E. Sherwood: "You and I have got something great that we can take with us all the rest of our lives. It's a great realization. Because we know it's true what so many people believed about him and what made them love him. The President never let them down. That's what you and I can remember. Oh, we all know he could be exasperating, and he could seem to be temporizing and delaying, and he'd get us all worked tip when we thought he was making too many concessions to expediency. But all of that was in the little things, the unimportant things - and he knew exactly how the little and how unimportant they really were. But in the big things - all of the things that were of real, permanent importance - he never let the people down."

On this day in 2011 the historian Dorothy Thompson died.

Dorothy Katharine Towers, the only daughter and second of five children of Reginald Joseph Towers (1892–1966) and his wife, Katharine Gane Towers (1893–1978), was born on 30 October 1923. Both her parents were professional musicians and Labour Party supporters. Her father owned a music shop in Bromley.

Her grandfathers were a shoemaker and a merchant seaman. Her interest in "outsiders" developed from her experiences as a village girl of modest means at a private suburban school, and from her sense that there was more life and joy in the "villagers and gypsies on the common... than the people at school and their parents."

Her earliest memory was of the General Strike in 1926. "I remember my father bringing some people home - he had a little motorcar - and these people were stranded because of the strike, we were told. My brother sent the contents of his money box to the miners. I remember an item in the newspaper, in the Daily Herald, which said that Tommy Towers had sent the contents of his money box to the miners. So I can date that clearly in 1926. I don't know how far it influenced me but certainly it's an early memory."

As a teenager she joined the Young Communist League. In 1942 she was awarded an exhibition to Girton College. While at university she met and married a fellow student, Gilbert Buchanan Sale (1924–1986). During the Second World War he served in the British Army whereas she worked in a London engineering works as a draughtswoman. However, the couple divorced at the end of the war.

On returning to Cambridge University in 1945 she began a lifelong relationship with Edward P. Thompson. Both were active in the Communist Party of Great Britain and both shared a strong interest in history. Dorothy later explained why she chose to study history. "We had a very good teacher at school who got us very excited by history. It was when I was about sixteen or seventeen that I realized that history was a problem-solving discipline and not just an information-absorbing one. I got interested in history because it linked up with my interest in politics, and with family memories. For instance I was always enormously puzzled that one branch of the family had actually left their native country, left a comfortable living to come and live in the East End of London, simply because their version of Christianity was different from the dominant one."

Dorothy married Edward on 16 December 1948. Dorothy worked as a part-time tutor in Leeds University department of extra-mural studies. Dorothy and Edward Thompson joined Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, A. L. Morton, Raphael Samuel, George Rudé, John Saville, Edmund Dell, Victor Kiernan and Maurice Dobb in forming the Communist Party Historians' Group. In 1952 members of the group founded the journal, Past and Present. Over the next few years the journal pioneered the study of working-class history. Saville was later to write: "The Historian's Group had a considerable long-term influence upon most of its members. It was an interesting moment in time, this coming together of such a lively assembly of young intellectuals, and their influence upon the analysis of certain periods and subjects of British history was to be far-reaching."

As Christos Efstathiou has explained: "Most of the members of the Group had common aspirations as well as common past experiences. The majority of them grew up in the inter-war period and were Oxbridge undergraduates who felt that the path to socialism was the solution to militarism and fascism. It was this common cause that united them as a team of young revolutionaries, who saw themselves as the heir of old radicalism."

During the 20th Party Congress in February, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev launched an attack on the rule of Joseph Stalin. He condemned the Great Purge and accused Joseph Stalin of abusing his power. He announced a change in policy and gave orders for the Soviet Union's political prisoners to be released. Pollitt found it difficult to accept these criticisms of Stalin and said of a portrait of his hero that hung in his living room: "He's staying there as long as I'm alive". Khrushchev's de-Stalinzation policy encouraged people living in Eastern Europe to believe that he was willing to give them more independence from the Soviet Union.

In Hungary the prime minister Imre Nagy removed state control of the mass media and encouraged public discussion on political and economic reform. Nagy also released anti-communists from prison and talked about holding free elections and withdrawing Hungary from the Warsaw Pact. Khrushchev became increasingly concerned about these developments and on 4th November 1956 he sent the Red Army into Hungary. During the Hungarian Uprising an estimated 20,000 people were killed. Nagy was arrested and replaced by the Soviet loyalist, Janos Kadar.

The Thompsons, like most members of the Communist Party Historians' Group, supported Imre Nagy and as a result, like most Marxists, they left the Communist Party of Great Britain after the Hungarian Uprising and a "New Left movement seemed to emerge, united under the banners of socialist humanism... the New Leftists aimed to renew this spirit by trying to organise a new democratic-leftist coalition, which in their minds would both counter the 'bipolar system' of the cold war and preserve the best cultural legacies of the British people."

Former members of the Communist Party Historians' Group published the socialist journal The New Reasoner. Her biographer and friend, Sheila Rowbotham, pointed out: "Characteristically, her competence meant she was designated business manager, though she also read through submitted manuscripts. The break with the Communist party was painful, but it also brought hope in the creation of a new left. Dorothy worked with the writers, artists, historians and trade unionists who were forming the new left clubs in many towns."

Dorothy Thompson had three children: Ben (1948), Mark (1951) and Kate (1956) and this left little time for sustained historical research. She later argued that her days revolved as much around "bringing up children, running a household and taking an active part in contemporary politics" as around teaching and research.

In 1957 Thompson helped form the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Other members included J. B. Priestley, Bertrand Russell, Fenner Brockway, Frank Allaun, Donald Soper, Vera Brittain, Sydney Silverman, James Cameron, Jennie Lee, Victor Gollancz, Konni Zilliacus, Richard Acland, A. J. P. Taylor, Canon John Collins and Michael Foot.

During the 1960s she continued adult teaching and did research for the Dictionary of Labour Biography. In 1970 she started her first full-time job as a lecturer in history at the University of Birmingham, where for twenty years she exercised a powerful impact upon her students. She returned to her study of Chartism "and in the agitation for political rights for working people and for women." This led to the publication in 1984 of The Chartists: Popular Politics in the Industrial Revolution.

Duane C. Anderson has argued that the book was "many years the landmark history of Chartism reflecting her enormous knowledge and breadth of research in this area. Her research into Chartism was ground breaking, opening up new topics of study from a focus on female Chartists to the role ethnicity in Chartist politics."

It has been pointed out that The Chartists: Popular Politics in the Industrial Revolution followed on from her husband's The Making of the English Working Class (1963) and "many years the landmark history of Chartism reflecting her enormous knowledge and breadth of research in this area. Her research into Chartism was ground breaking, opening up new topics of study from a focus on female Chartists to the role ethnicity in Chartist politics."

Other books Dorothy Thompson was involved in included her editing Over Our Dead Bodies: Women against the Bomb (1982), Queen Victoria: Gender and Power (1990), a collection of essays, Outsiders: Class, Gender and Nation (1993) and The Duty of Discontent (1995), a collection of essays in her honour.