Women’s suffrage campaigners in the Crowborough, Uckfield and Heathfield area, as elsewhere in rural Sussex, were likely to be ‘suffragists’ rather than ‘suffragettes’, i.e. emphatically non-militant and law-abiding, and members of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) rather than of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU).

The NUWSS, founded in 1897, was led by Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Its colours were green, white and red. The colours green, white and mauve were those of the WSPU, founded by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903. Its members, who went in for militant, law-breaking tactics, were dubbed ‘suffragettes’ in 1906 by the Daily Mail, and the terms ‘suffragist’ and ‘suffragette’ have been used indiscriminately ever since.

Although it has always received less attention than the WSPU, the NUWSS was a much larger organisation with a far greater membership, and its branches across Sussex formed part of the Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire Federation of Women’s Suffrage Societies.

A Suffragette WSPU Member – Copyright Malcolm Bull

The Corbett family of Woodgate (now Cumnor House) Danehill were leading figures in the formation of branches in the Central Sussex and Wealden areas. Marie Corbett, the first woman on the Uckfield District Council, and her husband Charles, Liberal MP for the East Grinstead constituency 1906-10, founded the Liberal Women’s Suffrage Society and the East Grinstead Women’s Suffrage Society, and encouraged the formation of a Crowborough branch in early 1911. Its President was Sybil, Countess Brassey, who was also President of the Bexhill, Hastings and St Leonard’s Women’s Suffrage Society.

Later that year, the Sussex Express reported that a women’s suffrage meeting in the Public Hall, Uckfield, ‘was largely attended, including many of the principal families in the neighbourhood’.  Here too Countess Brassey presided and ‘that well-known speaker’ Marie Corbett took part.

By June 1912, at a meeting in the grounds of Mrs Kensington’s house in Haverbrack, Buxted, Marie Corbett could invite those present to join the Uckfield and District Women’s Suffrage Society ‘in the course of formation’.

Heathfield and District was another branch of the NUWSS and the diaries of the Reverend Gregory Pennethorne, Vicar of All Saints, Old Heathfield, give valuable information about its activities. Unfortunately, the 1912 volume is missing, but a report of a meeting in March 1912 of over 300 people in the Recreation Hall filled two columns of the Sussex Express.

The Revd Pennethorne, as usual, presided, supported by, among others, Marie Corbett, Mrs Loesch of Barklye, and Mrs Logie Pirie of Tottingworth Park. So many names are listed that the event looks like a social gathering of all the great and the good of Heathfield.

The Revd Pennethorne’s 1913 diary records further women’s suffrage meetings in 1913 but by the end of that year his health must have been failing: he neither attends nor notes any more such events, so we don’t have his comments on a big public meeting in the Heathfield Recreation Hall in March 1914, addressed by Millicent Garrett Fawcett herself.

In the chair was Lady Eleanor Cecil of Chelwood Gate, whose husband, Lord Robert Cecil, was, with Charles Corbett and Heathfield activist Dr Charles Vickery Drysdale, a founder member of the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage. Millicent Garrett Fawcett was applauded for emphasising that militant methods were antagonistic to the very principles for which Suffragists stood.

This story was submitted by Frances Stenlake with illustrations by Malcolm Bull

The post Women’s Suffrage Campaigning in Crowborough, Uckfield and Heathfield appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Born in Australia on 12 November 1877, Muriel took a keen interest in music. After studying the topic at the University of Adelaide she began giving public recitals and performances. However, in order to build a career in musical performance and acting she took the decision to leave Australia in 1905, and travel by boat to Britain.

Music and Politics

Peter Kropotkin circa 1900

Following her arrival in London, Muriel began attempting a regular music career. Whilst she was able to give occasional recitals, the performance scene in London was already well-stocked in performers. Whilst still pursuing a music career she also found additional work as a journalist where she interviewed literary figures such as George Bernard Shaw and also radical revolutionary thinkers such as Peter Kropotkin.

Following her interview with Kroptokin she secured a recital at his house where he later challenged her to use her skills to further political aims. With Kropotkin’s challenge in mind, Muriel began involved with the Women’s Freedom League (WFL) and the cause of Women’s Suffrage.

Muriel toured the south-east of England in 1908, in a ‘Votes for Women’ caravan. Whilst allowing her the opportunity to give speeches in each town she visited, the primary objective of the tour was to help with the establishment of new WFL branches in Sussex, Kent, and Essex.

On 28 October 1908, Muriel and other members of the WFL staged a protest at the Houses of Parliament. In the ‘Ladies Gallery’ overlooking the main chamber of the House of Commons, a ‘Grille’ existed that purposefully obstructed women’s view of the proceedings. Muriel and a compatriot, Helen Fox, chained themselves to this Grille and began announcing the benefits of increasing the electoral franchise to the politicians below. Meanwhile, other WFL members staged simultaneous demonstrations elsewhere.

Muriel Matters’ hot air balloon. Image from: balloonteam.net

The entire Grille had to be removed, with Muriel Matters and Helen Fox still attached to it and moved to another room for a blacksmith to remove the chains. Muriel, 13 other women and one man, were tried the next day and convicted of willfully obstructing London policing. Each was sentenced to serve a month’s imprisonment.

This did not dissuade Muriel or the WFL and, in February of 1909, they flew a hot air balloon over London during the state opening of Parliament (although strong winds meant they never reached the Houses of Parliament themselves) and dropped political pamphlets on the people below.

The First World War

In 1910, Muriel Matters returned to Australia to give a lecture tour before once again returning to live in London.

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914, brought about significant divisions in the Women’s Suffrage movement. Some women suspended their political activities for the duration of the conflict in order to support the country. Others opposed the war and continued their political protests to varying degrees whilst the war was ongoing.

Muriel Matters, 1924

In 1915, Muriel Matters publicly decried not just this war but also the very notion of war itself. She declared that attempting to solve modern problems through military means not a successful course of action and that the justification for war was often built upon false pretenses.

She also took the additional step of decrying nationalism itself as a major course for militarism and international conflict.

The address where she gave these remarks in 1915 was later distributed as a political pamphlet by the Peace Committee of the Society of Friends.

After the war

Following the conclusion of the First World War and the subsequent increase of the electoral franchise to include some, but not all, women, Muriel Matters had the opportunity to fulfill a dream that many had thought would never be possible.

In 1924, Muriel Matters stood as the Labour Party candidate for Hastings in the General Election. The opponent was the Conservative candidate Lord Eustace Percy. Muriel’s platform was heavily socialist and she advocated for further equality for the sexes, and greater distribution of wealth in tackling poverty and inequality.

However, despite her best efforts, Muriel was defeated by Lord Percy who increased his majority in retaining the seat.

Hastings Borough Council rename their main office to Muriel Matters House

Four years after her electoral campaign, women across Britain were finally granted the same electoral franchise rights as men.

Muriel settled in Hastings with her husband, and eventually died in a nursing home in St Leonards in 1969.

On 5 January 2017, Hastings Borough Council honoured Muriel Matters, by renaming the main council offices to Muriel Matters House.

The post Muriel Matters appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

First opened in 1872, Hastings Pier was an important focal point for the seaside town. It was designed by Eugenius Birch who, as a noted seaside architect, had also designed Eastbourne Pier and Brighton’s West Pier.

The pier was originally 910 feet long and at the ‘sea end’ of the pier was an ornate oriental style pavilion which could house 2,000 people. When the attraction opened on 5th August 1872, 600 attending guests were seated and given lunch.

Original image courtesy of Hastings Pier Charity. ‘Then and Now’ image and effect by Kieron Pelling.

The pier was developed further in the years after it opened. In 1909, an American style bowling alley was constructed in the middle of the decking. A further extension to the shore end of the pier was also completed in 1916, to allow a bandstand to be constructed.

With the First World War ongoing, the new bandstand was a perfect location for crowds to gather for performances by military and marching bands.

However, a disaster struck the pier in 1917.

Fire

On the afternoon of Sunday 15th July 1917, a fire broke out at the ornate pavilion at the end of Hastings Pier. The blaze began on the western side of the pavilion but, fanned by a breeze blowing from the south-west, soon enveloped the entire building.

The Hastings and St Leonards Pictorial Advertiser reported on the 19th July, that only the ‘strenuous exertions of the fire brigade assisted by soldiers and general constables’ had prevented the fire from consuming the rest of the pier. Similarly, the Hastings and St Leonards Observer on the 21st July, also praised the actions of Captain Glenister and his fellow firemen.

As it was, the pavilion was completely destroyed by the fire and the bowling alley was also damaged by the flames. Miraculously, no lives were lost in the disaster.

As the pier burned, many residents of Hastings came to the beach to watch. Furthermore, a hospital was located near the pier on the seafront and a mix of patients and wounded soldiers were able to observe the fire from there.

Whilst the true cause of the fire was never properly ascertained, it was widely believed to have been caused by a badly discarded cigarette.

Aftermath

Original image courtesy of Hastings Pier Charity. ‘Then and Now’ image and effect by Kieron Pelling.

In carefully phrased language which acknowledged that the fire was a ‘catastrophe’ and dealt ‘a severe blow to the Company and to the town’, the Hastings and St Leonards Observer also noted that ‘there may be something in the assertion that the burning of … Hastings Pier gives the Directors a good opportunity to bring their structure up-to-date’. The suggestion was that the fire may have proved quite useful to the owners of the pier.

In the immediate short term, changes had to be made for planned performances in the dance hall by a troupe called The Aristocrats. With the ownership company now facing the need to rebuild the pier and pay the wages of The Aristocrats, the forthcoming performances were subsidised by a public appeal which ensured that the performers could be paid without the ownership company taking a cut of the profits.

Some of the losses from the fire on the pier were offset by a diver locating the official safe of Hasting’s Pier which had fallen into the sea during the fire.

The repairs to Hastings Pier would not be completed until 1922 when a new structure opened in the place of the old pavilion. However, this new building lacked all of the ornate design of the previous pavilion. It continued to house orchestral performances until the opening of the ‘White Rock Pavilion‘ in 1928.

During the Second World War, Hastings Pier like other piers along the south coast, had sections removed to prevent it being used as a landing point for a German invasion.

Looking forward to the present day, the pier was closed in 2006 over fears the structure was unsafe but, after substantial work, was re-opened in 2009.

However, another fire in October 2010 again devastated the pier. Following more restoration and rebuilding work the pier was once again opened on 27th April 2016.

In May 2017, one year on from the new opening, the pier picked up three prestigious Royal Institute of British Archiects (RIBA) awards: the RIBA award for the South East, Regional Client of the Year and Regional Project Architect of the Year. The pier was also voted Pier of the Year 2017 by the National Piers Society.

Images for this story are courtesy of the Hastings Pier Charity and Richard Pollard. The ‘Then and Now’ effect was produced by Kieron Pelling.

The post Hastings Pier Fire appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Public houses and beer had been a staple of British social and socialising life in the years before the First World War. During the Victorian era many pubs had been opened alongside worker accommodation, and were partially owned by the local factories, to provide convenient entertainment for the workers and also to recoup money previously paid out as wages.

However, following the start of the war in August 1914, dramatic changes would begin to affect breweries, pubs, and punters across Britain.

Licensing Laws

In 1915, the then Minister for Munitions, Lloyd George, declared that; “We are fighting Germans, Austrians and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes is drink”. There had been ongoing fears within Britain that over indulgence with alcohol by factory and munition workers would cost Britain productivity and starve the army abroad of ammunition. In 1914, the introduction of the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) and its subsequent variations had sought to address some of these concerns.

Among the long-reaching powers granted to the government by DORA, was strict new legislation regarding the selling and consuming of alcohol.

Licensing hours, the time when public houses were permitted to sell alcohol, had become more restrictive following the Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill of 1872. With the introduction of DORA they became stricter still. New laws meant that pubs were forced to close during the middle of the day to prevent all day drinking. The new hours saw establishments open initially between midday and 2:30pm, before staying closed until 6:30pm when they would then stay open until 9:30pm. Failure to observe these strict licensing hours saw landlords lose their licenses and pubs being forced to shut down. These enforced hours stayed in law until the Licensing Act of 1988.

Further to these licensing laws, additional restrictions were brought in regarding alcohol. Beer in particular was ordered to be ‘watered down‘ to make it less potent and reduce drunkenness. Additionally it became illegal to buy drinks for other people, thus ending the tradition of buying alcohol in rounds. And the impact of the First World War on the sale of alcohol did not stop there.

Breweries

The outbreak of the First World War brought about an increasing demand for men to join the army. In the early months of the war, the British Army was of negligible size and desperately needed immediate reinforcement.

In East Sussex, local breweries, such as Harveys in Lewes, recognised that men who worked for them would begin to leave in order to join the army. As a result they began the process of combining their individual delivery staff into a collective pool for beer deliveries.

The plan for combining staff not only freed up men to join the army, it also allowed them to combine resources and avoid individual costs and losses.

Controls on alcohol continued throughout the war and many of the powers granted to the government by DORA were not be immediately rescinded following the conflict’s conclusion.

The post Alcohol and the First World War appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Events marking the anniversary of the failed gunpowder plot of 1605 have been a staple of many British communities for decades if not centuries. The 5th November was often met with torchlight parades through town centres, the building of bonfires, and the releasing of fireworks.

Several of the famous Lewes Bonfire Societies date back to the mid 19th century and the town is still renowned for the huge crowds who gather each year to mark the event.

When Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914, new legislation would bring these festivities to an abrupt end.

Excerpt from the Defence of the Realm Manual (August 1918) detailing the restrictions on signals and fires

Defence of the Realm Act

Originally introduced on 8 August 1914, mere days after the declaration of war, the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) was designed to ‘secure public safety’ by protecting Britain from the possibility of invasion and helping to bolster morale on the home front. The original act was further amended  on 28 August 1914, and then again on the 27 November 1914, with this latter version becoming the conclusive and binding format of the law.

At its heart the legislation composing DORA was designed to protect the country and ‘His Majesty’s forces’ from any interference by the enemy. Many of the declarations within DORA initially seemed to be fairly broad but it was this breadth that enable the Defence of the Realm Act to have far-reaching consequences.

The final act included the following text:

(1) His Majesty in Council has power during the continuance of the present war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and defence of the realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of His Majesty’s forces and other persons acting on his behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the trial by courts-martial, or in the case of minor offences by courts of summary jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such regulations designed:-

(a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of His Majesty’s forces or the forces of his allies or to assist the enemy; or
(b) to secure the safety of His Majesty’s forces and ships and the safety of any means of communication and of railways, ports, and harbours; or
(c) to prevent the spread of false reports or reports likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty or to interfere with the success of His Majesty’s forces by land or sea or to prejudice His Majesty’s relations with foreign powers; or
(d) to secure the navigation of vessels in accordance with directions given by or under the authority of the Admiralty; or
(e) otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the war being endangered.

Searchlights over London. Image courtesy of Imperial War Museum: Art.IWM ART 17172

Through this legislation the government and military were able to outlaw particular possessions such as binoculars that could be used to spy upon naval ports. It was made illegal to loiter in or around bridges and tunnels in case of attempted sabotage.

Further to this, the institution of blackouts to hamper the activities of enemy zeppelins and aircraft, were extended to outlaw the lighting of bonfires and fireworks in case they were used to signal enemy forces.

In one stroke all Bonfire Night activities were made illegal in Britain for the duration of the war.

Lewes Bonfire Societies and the First World War

Before the First World War, it was traditional for societies to meet in September and begin the process of raising funds for the forthcoming Bonfire Night. Following the celebrations each year, remaining money was generally dispersed to local charities.

The introduction of the first drafts of the Defence of the Realm Act immediately ceased any planning by the societies.

Even if these laws had not been passed, the mass recruitment of able bodied young men may well have rendered many of the societies unable to function during the conflict.

Mick Symes of the Lewes Borough Bonfire Society, an organisation that has been running since 1853, reports that there are no records of the society holding any activities during the war years and that, as the war continued, the introduction of conscription in 1916 would have further increased the number of society members departing for armed service. Similarly, many members of the South Street Bonfire Society, which had only formed in 1913, were also moved to join the army.

Throughout the years of the war, the constraints of DORA continued to prevent Bonfire Night related activities in Lewes and other towns in Britain.

The announcement of the Armistice on 11 November 1918 did, however, bring about a celebration involving mass fireworks in Eastbourne, and on 20 November the ‘Bonfire Boys’ of Lewes staged a celebratory parade to mark the end of the conflict whilst also remembering those members who had died or been wounded in the fighting.

After the Armistice

Whilst the war had ended it would still take some time before normal Bonfire Night celebrations would return. The Commercial Square Bonfire Society, originally formed in 1855, voted to disband in 1919 and would not reform and carry torches again until 1922.

Lest we forget
2008 Fireworks display at Lewes bonfire night celebrations, Sussex.
Image by Mark Bridge

The Southover Bonfire Society represented the parish of Southover which had been particularly hard hit by casualties during the war. It did not reform after the conflict until 1923.

In 1920 the members of the South Street Bonfire Society drew inspiration from the recent conflict by marching through the streets of Lewes bearing an effigy of a German accused of ‘murdering’ the British nurse Edith Cavell.

Over time the Bonfire Societies of Lewes and East Sussex recovered from the losses during the First World War, though they would experience similar restrictions on their activities during the Second World War.

The Societies remain an integral part of the county celebrations of Bonfire Night, and early conversations have taken place regarding the possibility of re-enacting the celebratory parade of 20 November 1918, in the town of Lewes in 2018.

This article was written with assistance and information provided by Mick Symes, Lewes Borough Bonfire Society, and Simon Bailey, Secretary of the South Streets Bonfire Society.

The post Bonfire Night in the First World War appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Whilst the campaign for equal voting rights for women is often closely associated with the First World War, it did not begin there.

The women’s suffrage movement first began to emerge as a recognisable force in the 19th century. At that time, voting rights for men were limited, for women non-existent,  and the British electoral system in general was heavily under representative. At the end of the 18th century, less than 3% of the population had the vote. By the 1830s, many large and industrial cities did not have a single Member of Parliament representing their population.

Protest and pressure against this situation came through groups such as the Chartists. The Chatrists were primarily focused on improving the voting rights of men. However, there were supporters and organisers within the group who were also in favour of voting rights for women.

The suffrage movement was still in its nascent stage at this point but as the 19th century progressed, so too would the popularity and visibility of the campaign.

Barbara Bodichon

Barbara Bodichon portrait by Samuel Lawrence

Born Barbara Leigh Smith, in 1827 at Whatlington near Battle, East Sussex, Barbara lived most of her life in Pelham Crescent, Hastings. Barbara was born to her parents out of wedlock and, as a result, was the subject of some scandal at the time. However, her father, Benjamin Leigh Smith, was the Member of Parliament for Norwich and he provided Barbara with a strong education and then investments which brought her £300 per year (£28,000 in today’s money) once she’d turned 21. Her education and financial backing allowed Barbara a degree of freedom and independence that was largely unheard of for women of the time period.

Whilst initially pursuing her dream of becoming an artist, Barbara also became increasingly interested and involved in campaigns designed to highlight the inequalities faced by women. In 1854, she published the pamphlet; A Brief Summary in Plain Language of the Most Important Laws Concerning Women, Together with a Few Observations Thereon. Within its pages, Barbara confronted the discriminatory nature of property and marriage laws towards women.

After marrying the French physician Dr Eugene Bodichon in 1857, Barbara followed her pamphlet by setting up the English Women’s Journal in 1858, and by assisting in the creation of the Society for the Promotion of Employment for Women in 1859.

Barbara then turned her attention to the matter of votes for women by supporting the parliamentary election campaign of John Stuart Mill, who was strongly in favour of women’s suffrage.

In 1877, Barbara Bodichon suffered a stroke which greatly curtailed her ability to campaign for women’s equality. She died in 1891 leaving a legacy as one of the founders of the women’s rights movement.

Women’s Suffrage and the First World War

The Suffragette movement grew in popularity, power, and visibility from the end of the 19th century but still struggled to force the government into producing real change.

WSPU poster by Hilda Dallas, 1909

The Pankhursts, mother Emmeline and her daughters Sylvia and Christabel, were key participants in leading the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). The WSPU had become increasingly angered and disillusioned by what they perceived to be broken promises and lies on behalf of the British government. In response the WSPU began a series of more militant protests and activities.

These activities included arson, bombings, direct protest action and hunger striking. In one of the most famous incidents, in 1913, Emily Davison walked in front of the King’s Horse at the Epsom Derby to draw attention to women’s suffrage and was subsequently trampled and killed.

In East Sussex, Clementina Black, born in Brighton in 1853, became involved in the suffrage and trade union movements at the end of the 19th century. She passionately campaigned for better working conditions for women, and fought against motions by existing trade unions to bar women from becoming members.

The outbreak of the First World War represented both an obstacle and an opportunity for the Suffragettes. Believing that German aggression was a serious threat to peace and civilisation the WSPU suspended activities at the outbreak of the war, whilst the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) continued peaceful action during the conflict.

There were those in both organisations that believed that by offering full support to the country during the war, women would be able to win the right to vote as a reward. At the same time, others believed that the need for national unity represented an opportunity for women to essentially bargain voting rights by threatening disruption.

Clementina Black

The British need for manpower in the army drastically reduced the workforce left behind in the country. Through necessity, jobs that had previously been denied to women suddenly opened up. Women began to fulfill roles in a variety of industries such as armament production, the postal service, and transportation.

However, resistance from male co-workers and their trade unions meant that women workers were usually paid far less than their male equivalents and jobs of skilled men were subject to ‘dilution’ where they were broken down into multiple unskilled roles which had to be filled by multiple women. This prevented women from replacing skilled male workers in a 1:1 ratio.

In 1915, Clementina Black and the Women’s Industrial Council (WIC) published their research into the working conditions of women in 117 different trades as Married Women’s Work.

At the conclusion of the war, many of the women who had found work during the conflict were immediately dismissed to make way for the returning men.

1918 Representation of the People Act

As the First World War came to an end a general election was looming. In 1917, a bill expanding the electoral franchise for both men and women had passed through the House of Commons and was enacted on 6 February 1918.

This Representation of the People Act removed almost all property ownership requirements for male voters and changed residency requirements for them whilst lowering the voting age to 21.

Representation of the People Act 1918

Women over the age of 30 gained the vote if they were property owners, either married to a member of a Local Government Register (which was a list of those who were paying taxes on owned property) or were a member themselves, or if they were a graduate voting in a university constituency.

For some time this change to the electoral franchise was seen as a victory for the women’s suffrage movement and a validation of their policy to actively support the war effort.

However, there remains historical skepticism about this argument. The overwhelming beneficiaries of the new electoral situation were men, who had almost all obstacles removed from them in reward for their war service. Residency rules were altered because of the number of men who had been deployed abroad and, therefore, had not been living in the country during the war.

Additionally, that the age of voting for women was 30 is indicative in itself. Many of those men who lost their lives in the war fell between the ages of 21 and 30. If the right to vote had been extended to women aged 21 and over as it had been to men, they would likely have outnumbered men in this age demographic.

Furthermore, in the years before the war, the activities of the Suffragettes had been building a degree of momentum and power and it has been supposed that if the war had not begun at all, these activities may well have led to a better voting deal for women than that which they ‘won’ as a result of the war.

It would not be until the Representation of the People Act in 1928, that women would gain equal voting rights as men in Britain.

For further information regarding the fight for Women’s Suffrage see the records of the Women’s Library.

The post East Sussex Suffragettes appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Born in 1865, Robert Lawrence Thornton had a long life of civic and military service. Although born in Surrey, it was with East Sussex that Robert became most closely associated. Robert served in the Royal Sussex Regiment from 1880 to 1901, with the majority of his time spent in the 3rd Battalion where he eventually achieved the rank of Major. During these years the Royal Sussex Regiment saw service in numerous countries and wars, including the Second Boer War.

For his devotion defending his country, Robert would later be made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE).

Alongside his military duties, Major Thornton would also hold many civic positions within East Sussex. He became the High Sheriff of East Sussex in 1900 having also become Justice of the Peace in 1892.

Robert Thornton also served as both the choirmaster and churchwarden for Framfield, the small village which he had made his home with his wife, Charlotte, and children, Robert West and Gerald.

Additionally he served as the President of the Royal Sussex County Hospital and held numerous positions within East Sussex County Council (ESCC) over 40 years.

East Sussex County Council

At the outbreak of the First World War the areas of Sussex that ESCC presided over were fairly different to the areas it is responsible for today. Whilst Brighton, Eastbourne, and Hastings were identified as independent county boroughs, Burgess Hill, Cuckfield, and East Grinstead were all part of East Sussex.

Major Robert Thornton was elected to the position of Chairman for ESCC in 1913 and served until 1916.

It was during this time period, Robert Thornton received devastating news regarding his eldest son; Robert West Thornton.

Lieutenant Robert West Thornton

Born in 1896, Robert West Thornton was first educated at Eton College before joining the Officer Training Corps of the British Army. He joined the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and was also given the rank of 2nd Lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers.

Ruins in the Square, Ypres, May 1915 – Image Courtesy of the Imperial War Museum (IWM Q 56699)

Robert West was still in training, however, when war began in Europe and he would not depart for the continent until late November of 1914 when he was sent to the 4th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers who were defending the Ypres Salient from the German Army.

The winter of 1914 into 1915 was characterised by bitterly cold conditions, heavy snow, and heavier casualties. By Easter of 1915, the original British Expeditionary Force had been largely destroyed by months of constant fighting around the increasingly ruined town of Ypres. Whilst reinforcements continued to arrive throughout 1915, they would not save Lieutenant Robert West Thornton.

In June of 1915, the order was given for British forces to attack German positions along a ridge that overlooked Ypres. The duty of capturing and holding the German front line trenches was given to the 4th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers. Although initially successful in taking the German trenches, when the British attempted to press forward they sustained heavy casualties. Lieutenant Robert West Thornton was shot through the chest whilst commanding machine gun deployment.

Heavy artillery fire followed the attack and, when it was over, Robert West’s body was gone, never to be found. He is commemorated on the Menin Gate at Ypres.

Lieutenant Thornton had previously proved himself to be an accomplished soldier and was mentioned in dispatches by General Sir John French, and also later recommended for the Military Medal.

Framfield

The Thornton family held long links to the small village of Framfield. Lieutenant Robert West Thornton is commemorated within the local church on both an individual plaque and another memorial listing all from the area who died in the war. Robert Lawrence Thornton’s father had also once been a High Sheriff for East Sussex. He is also featured in a memorial plaque within Little Horsted Church

Both of Robert West’s grandparents, the father and mother of Robert Lawrence Thornton, are also commemorated within Framfield’s church by a wooden plaque and a stain-glass window.

Major Robert Lawrence Thornton lived until the age of 81 before dying in 1947. His death was recorded in the Uckfield register.

Some images and information for this story are courtesy of Framfield Church

The post The Thorntons and East Sussex County Council appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

At the outbreak of the First World War any plans or consideration for how to deal with the bodies and graves of British soldiers took a back seat to the ongoing war effort. However, as the war continued beyond 1914 and the numbers of dead began to climb it became apparent that some form of new structure or institution would need to be created.

The Imperial War Graves Commission

Boer War Memorial, Brighton – image courtesy of Sophie Unger

In previous wars, British policy regarding the repatriation of their war dead often hinged on economic factors. If the family of the deceased were wealthy enough then they would pay for the body to be brought home for a funeral. If not, then the dead were often left in the countries where they had fallen or, depending on circumstances, given something like a burial at sea.

However, the actual process of creating war memorials was fairly well established by the outbreak of the First World War, with memorials and statues to recent conflicts such as the Boer War being relatively common around the country.

In the earliest days of the First World War much of the responsibility for maintaining the graves of fallen British soldiers was handed over to the French military and it was anticipated that responsibility would remain with them until the end of the conflict, when a more permanent solution would be discussed. Once it became clear how many men were beginning to die in the fighting, however, the decision was rapidly made that it would not be practical for any of the bodies to be returned to Britain when room on ships travelling across the channel could instead be used for wounded men.

As the war then began to stretch on through the years the decision was officially made that none of those who had fallen would be returning home.

Fabian Ware

At the beginning of the First World War, Fabian Ware was forty-five years old and, as a result, adjudged to be too old to fight. In order to serve in some way, he gained command of a Red Cross field ambulance unit and was subsequently deployed to France in September 1914. Whilst there he rapidly became dismayed at the lack of infrastructure for dealing with the rising number of dead. In response, Ware and his ambulance unit began to collect information on the graves of British soldiers in each area they visited.

Ware and his ambulance unit’s record keeping were so successful that by March 1915 they had been given official recognition by the Imperial War Office. Later the Imperial War Office renamed the unit the Grave Registration Commission (GRC) and transferred to the British Army. By October 1915, they held the records of over 30,000 British war graves. By the following May it was 50,000.

Such was the success of the Grave Registration Committee that they began to answer requests from families at home for photographs of their loved ones’ graves, and also began to send personnel to other military theatres in Greece and Mesopotamia to record the details of graves there. In 1917, the GRC was expanded and renamed by Royal Charter the Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) with Fabian Ware serving as its vice-chairman.

In 1918 a total of 587,000 graves had been recorded whilst another 559,000 men were listed as having no known grave.

Following the armistice the difficult task of dealing with these mass cemeteries and constructing war memorials began. The cemeteries themselves would be designed by noted architects such as Edwin Lutyens whilst Rudyard Kipling would serve as a literary consultant to produce the wording for memorials and headstones.

In the 1960s the IWGC was renamed as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) and continues its work to this day.

Lying where they fell

The British Army stuck to its original decision that those who fell in battle would remain there and their bodies would not be returned home. Where possible the newly designed cemeteries were placed as close to the point where men had originally been buried as they could. Many were constructed on the exact same ground, and around the Somme and Ypres, graves are often arranged in circles to mark mass graves or shell craters that claimed the lives of many men.

However, not all who died in the First World War perished in battle. Many soldiers were badly wounded in the fighting and, although they were evacuated back to Britain for medical treatment, some of their wounds were so severe that they proved fatal. In the same way that it had been deemed imprudent to return the bodies of men who had died abroad to England, it was equally seen as unnecessary to return the bodies of those who had died in Britain to the battlefield.

As a result, by the cruel twist of fate of having initially survived their wounds and been brought home, only to later die, these men were able to receive graves and memorial services which their families could attend.

East Sussex War Graves

Cross of Sacrifice at the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme – Image courtesy of Chris Kempshall

There are likely to be very few towns and villages across Britain that do not have the recognisable white headstones of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission within their cemeteries. East Sussex is no exception.

Even though they were contained within existing civilian cemeteries, war graves continued to follow the same rules and standards as they did in France, Belgium and beyond. All headstones were to be identical in regards to stone, shape and size. Headstones would feature either a national emblem, regimental crest or religious image along with the name, age, rank, and date of death of the soldier.

Cemeteries that contained forty or more graves feature the Cross of Sacrifice. These crosses, designed to mirror medieval burial markers, are up to 32 feet in height and feature a bronze broadsword down the centre. Cemeteries with over a thousand graves will also contain the Stone of Remembrance.

Civilian cemeteries in East Sussex contain the graves of many men from both the World Wars. Some had died of their wounds in Britain. Others were killed during enemy attacks in the Second World War, or their bodies were found washed up on shore after their ships had been sunk, such as an unnamed Marine from the HMS Ariadne in Winchelsea.

The cemetery in St Michael’s Church, Newhaven features a memorial to the men and boys of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves from Newhaven and Seaford. Along the Lewes Road the larger Newhaven Cemetery holds 29 graves of First World War casualties including one sailor who was never identified.

Seaford Cemetery contains the graves of 248 men who died in the First World War and a further 25 from the Second. Amongst them are a number of Canadian soldiers, as the 10th Canadian Stationary Hospital was based near Seaford from November 1916 to January 1917.

Bear Road Cemetery in Brighton contains, amongst the 275 First World War dead, a considerable number of Australian and Canadian men, alongside several Belgians. These men who had lost their lives, despite being evacuated to safety, were never to see their home countries again and were laid to rest in British soil.

Recording Remembrance

The Commonwealth War Graves that exist in Britain and out across Europe and the rest of the world continue to be cared for and maintained by the CWGC. War Memorials exist in most cities, towns or villages across the country. Very few places avoided losing anyone during either of the two World Wars. These ‘thankful villages’ as they came to be known include East Wittering located in West Sussex and the ironically named Upper Slaughter in Gloucestershire.

However, the memorialisation of the First World War later came to exemplify an ongoing problem. Those who had died and been lost were to receive memorials and gravestones but those who had lived through the conflict had no permanent memorial. The nature and structure of remembrance changed dramatically in the years following the war to focus evermore on those who had died, at times to the apparent detriment to those who had survived. Many soldiers came to feel isolated and marginalised in their own memories and history.

In the years since the World Wars the actual details and information contained on the hundreds of war memorials across East Sussex has been partially overlooked or forgotten. In an attempt to rectify this our sister project Recording Remembrance is leading a huge volunteer effort to locate, photograph, and collect as much information about memorials for all wars within the county.

Anybody who wishes to take part can access the website for Recording Remembrance through this link, and can assist in recording the records of war memorials spread across East Sussex that bear the names of those who died.

The post First World War Graves and East Sussex appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

From the opening days of the Great War in August 1914, the Belgians were able to claim the unenviable status of the first mass civilian casualties and dislocated people of the war on the Western Front.  The Belgian government had refused the German military free passage through their country, so the Germans simply walked in, advancing belligerently through Belgium sacking towns and villages as they went.  Thousands of people from cities and villages packed up their belongings and fled.  Some headed straight to neighbouring Holland, a neutral country throughout the war, where they remained until hostilities were over; others crossed the Channel to Britain entering our country through the South Coast ports with many heading straight to London in search of assistance.

Emily Ward – Image courtesy of Louise Heren

Established in 1892, the brainchild of forward-thinking primary teacher Mrs Emily Ward, the Norland Institute in London was the first nanny training college to open in the UK.  By 1914, Mrs Ward’s highly trained children’s nurses were already running the nurseries of many of the royal houses of Europe.  From the imperial court in St Petersburg via Germany to Greece, Norlanders were raising royal offspring in a thoroughly British manner.  They were considered the crème-de-la-crème of children’s nurses and had earned their place in the royal courts through hard work and the kind of mettle expected of an Edwardian young lady.  Behind the carapace of their starched uniforms, they were a force to be reckoned with, many having already escaped from Europe travelling long distances and experiencing numerous scrapes to return home to London and the home-counties.

Once home, their next experience of the war was the influx of refugees.  Being part of the caring professions, coming to their assistance was the perfect opportunity for Norland nurses to do their bit for the war effort, and Norland’s founder, Mrs Emily Ward, initiated the Institute’s relief work by opening the doors to her private home on the South Coast.

Mrs Ward and her husband had recently bought Little Hallands, an important mansion set in the midst of a large estate ten miles outside Lewes, near Brighton.  Mrs Ward was obviously enthralled with her new purchase and wrote to the Institute describing her rural idyll with chickens, little black pigs and a pair of nanny goats.  However, the news of German atrocities and the plight of Belgian children overwhelmed Mrs Ward, who realised she was in a privileged position to take practical steps to help.

Hurriedly set up in early August by a handful of titled and well-connected ladies, the War Refugees Committee had established its headquarters at Aldwych in London from where the charities distributed clothes and food as well as refugees to homes willing to take them.  The Wards’ first request for refugees was turned down by the Committee so they approached the Belgian Consul, who immediately identified nineteen refugees newly arrived and in urgent need of shelter.  He despatched the small party by train to Little Hallands where they arrived the same day.  It was 3rd September and this group had come straight from the war zone in Malines.

Situated on the road south of Antwerp, a key German target, the burgers of Malines had waited for the shells to land and the Germans to arrive.  When it came, the bombardment of their town would begin without the customary military warning given to local civilians to evacuate.  Mrs Ward’s group of Belgians were still in shock and carried few personal possessions having escaped the horror only eight days before.  They were all from the same town and most of them were related.

Nurse & their charges on the beach at Bognor Regis – Image courtesy of Louise Heren

The Wards collected the group at Seaford station amidst a friendly crowd, which had turned out to see the spectacle of real life ‘plucky little Belgians’.  A friendly doctor passing by hailed Mrs Ward as she waited at the station:

“I’ll doctor your Belgians free whenever you want me.  I’m not a rich man and can’t do much, but I’ll gladly do that.”

Three cars and a grocer’s cart carried them and their belongings to the Wards’ farmhouse.  The refugees spoke French and Flemish, and Mrs Ward spoke neither.  Unable to communicate with them, all Mrs Ward could do on the first night was supply a supper of milk, coffee, bread and cheese, and that perennial Edwardian staple comfort food – jam.  To make them feel more at home, the Wards had ‘thoughtfully provided tobacco for the men and sewing materials for the women’.

Of this first group of refugees, three were diamond cutters, another a brass-worker, along with four carpenters and cabinet-makers.  There was little call for most of these skills in Lewes, but Mr Ward found everyone work either on the Wards’ Little Hallands estate repairing fences and animal houses with the diamond cutters feeding the pigs, or in town doing odd-jobs.  With many local young women taking up munitions work, Mrs Ward was overwhelmed with applications for the Belgian women to go out to work as domestic servants.  Many were wives of well-positioned men and this was their first foray into paid employment.

Among the party were twelve children.  Three days after his arrival, young Ferdinand developed scarlet fever.  With an incubation period of two to five days, he would have been carrying it whilst playing with the children in the rest of the party before they arrived at Little Hallands.  Scarlet fever was a highly contagious disease spread by droplet infection or touching the rash that is typical of the disease.  In close confines and worn down by their ordeal, it was an unwelcome guest, but one that early twentieth century families were used to dealing with themselves.  There was no need to call for the charitable doctor because Ferdinand’s mother cheerfully remarked:

“Madame, we will shut him up in a room for four days, keep the windows closed, and give him only water to drink.  When the eruption is gone we will give him a bath, and it is all finished.”

Mrs Emily Ward & Miss Isabel Sharman, founder and the first principal of Norland Institute – Image courtesy of Louise Heren

It was not the remedy Mrs Ward had hoped for.  Over the next few days, all the children succumbed.  However, they all survived.  At a time when scarlet fever killed one in twenty and there was no known cure, Mrs Ward’s Belgians had proved sturdier than expected.

The refugees had arrived in England in their best clothes with spares wrapped in bundles, but they did not wear well and Winter was looming.  Mrs Ward organised a clothes collection from the neighbourhood as well as receiving items from the relief committees set up in London.  During one of her visits to the capital, Mrs Ward accompanied the principal, Miss Sharman, to a relief committee collection centre in Warwick Square where Mrs Ward was able to ask for ‘a coat for a short fat man’ and ‘a petticoat for a child of six’, both of which were immediately offered.  She was concerned how readily the Belgian ladies would become accustomed to the British fashion for narrow skirts when they had been used to wearing wider skirts, but it was a small worry amongst everything else.

There were cultural differences in the kitchen too.  The Belgians did not like English tea and after raiding the larder and drinking milk intended for the babies, a supply of cocoa was bought to prevent further shortages.  Towards the end of their first month in England, the Belgians’ wider relations arrived in London hoping to join Mrs Ward’s first batch of refugees, but the Government had recently passed a new regulation forbidding Belgians from residing on the coast.  Mrs Ward appealed to the local chief constable.  Her forceful but charming character won her part of her argument:  she was allowed to keep her Belgians, but sadly not allowed to welcome their relations.

In late September, news arrived of the destruction of Malines and Mrs Ward’s refugees realised they would remain in Lewes for the duration of the war.  Hers was one of hundreds of small gestures of hospitality shown to Belgians by Britons and supported by Prime Minister Herbert Asquith’s statement that ‘they may count on our whole-hearted and unfailing support to the end’.

By the time of the Armistice in November 1918, over a quarter of a million Belgians had sought refuge in Britain.

This story was submitted by Louise Heren, author of British Nannies and the Great War

The post British Nannies in Great War Sussex appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.

Although societal norms forbid homosexual acts between women, what were referred to as ‘acts of gross indecency’, were never made illegal. This story focuses on the experiences of homosexual men in WW1.

Historical Background and the War

Noel Pemberton Billing

Not only was homosexuality illegal, but there were also strong social currents, particularly among the upper classes, opposing same sex relationships. Before the war, the Eulengburg Affair in Germany, in which members of the German Cabinet were publically tried for homosexual conduct, meant that homosexuality was associated with Germaness. This sentiment remained throughout the war; in 1918 Noel Pemberton Billing, a British MP, published an article in the Vigilante which alleged that a German Prince had a book containing the names of 47,000 English men and women and records of their alleged ‘moral and sexual weakness’ that made them targets for German agents. The article proclaimed:

‘incestuous bars were established in Portsmouth and Chatham. In these meeting places the stamina of British sailors was undermined. More dangerous still, German agents, under the guise of indecent liaison, could obtain information as to the disposition of the Fleet . . . Wives of men in supreme position were entangled. In Lesbian ecstasy the most sacred secrets of State were betrayed. The sexual peculiarities of members of the peerage were used as a leverage to open fruitful fields for espionage.^’

In addition, as the British army began suffering heavy casualties a social emphasis on men doing their duty and aiding in the reproduction of the dwindling male population arose. Thereby, to enter into a homosexual relationship was not only illegal but unpatriotic.

As a result, records only subtly refer to homosexual relationships during the War. For example, the gay war poet Wilfred Owen wrote to his cousin in 1918:

‘There are two French girls in my billet, daughters of the Mayor, who (I suppose because of my French) single me out for their joyful gratitude for La Déliverance. Naturally I talk to them a good deal; so much so that the jealousy of other officers resulted in a Subalterns’ Court Martial being held on me! The dramatic irony was too killing, considering certain other things, not possible to tell in a letter.’

Another soldier who recognised that he was gay during the war explained at a later date why he did not act on his feelings:

‘There was no sexual contact with anybody in the services. The simple reason [for me was], I got promoted to sergeant from corporal. As you’re getting promotions, you couldn’t take no chances. I had several chances, mind you, with two or three different private soldiers I knew. You can gauge ‘em, but the point is, when you come to look at it you say to yourself – well, is it mind over matter? You know, you say to yourself, No, I mustn’t. You’re jeopardising your chances, because if something happened you’re going to get court martial.’

Experiences at home

E.M. Forster by Dora Carrington

One source available to us of an upper-middle class gay man’s experience of living in the South East during this time comes from the fictional book Maurice, written by E. M. Forster who grew up in Kent. The book was written in 1913-1914, although it wasn’t published until 1971, and it can be read as a ‘prison diary’; Forster’s account in fiction of living as a homosexual man in the early 1900s. The book follows the life of Maurice Hall, who enters his first homosexual relationship at Cambridge and spends the rest of his life on a journey to reach a place where he could be true to himself and love and enjoy physical contact with a partner of the same sex. Part of the reason for Forster’s reluctance in publishing Maurice may be understood by the fact that Rose Allatini’s 1918 book Despised and Rejected, which featured the wartime experiences of a homosexual man and lesbian woman, was banned under the Defence of the Realm Act as a potential threat to Britain’s morals.

The book identifies how difficult it was for an upper-middle class man to be gay at the beginning of the 20^th century. From the start of the book Maurice is detached from the idea that love and physical attraction can only happen in heterosexual relationships, and throughout, Maurice regards his sexuality as an illness, attempting at one stage to try and find a cure through hypnotism. Still, Forster never writes Maurice’s homosexuality as a perversion, and he recognised himself that this went against the social currents of the time. Writing to a friend in 1915 about the gay characters in his book, Forster said ‘ruling out undeveloped people like Clive…one is left with the ‘perverts’ (an absurd word because it assumes they were given a choice.)’ He goes on to say:

‘Are these ‘perverts’ good or bad like normal men, their disproportionate tendency to badness (which I admit) being due to the criminal blindness of Society? Or are they inherently bad? You answer, as I do, that they are the former … The man in my book is, roughly speaking, good, but Society nearly destroys him, he nearly slinks through his life furtive and afraid, and burdened with a sense of sin.’

Still, despite Forster’s recognition that in the ‘real world’ Maurice would have to live in furtive sin, in fiction, Forster gives his protagonist a happy ending. Although Maurice’s first relationship with Clive Durham ends with Clive deciding to marry, much to Maurice’s disappointment, towards the end of the book he meets and falls in love with an under-gamekeeper Alec Scudder.  Although their relationship is rocky at first, the book ends with Alec and Maurice deciding to make a life together in England. However, to do so, Maurice had to give up life as he knew it, as society would not accept such a relationship:

‘His journey was nearly over. He was bound for his new home. He had brought out the man in Alec, and now it was Alec’s turn to bring out the hero in him. He knew what the call was, and what his answer must be. They must live outside class, without relations or money; they must work and stick to each other till death.’

Maurice’s happy ending is important to note, because it was the ending that prevented Forster from publishing in 1914. Due to anti-homosexual societal attitudes, he instead dedicated the book ‘to a better year’ when same-sex relationships would be accepted, and Maurice’s happy ending could be more than just fantasy.

The Bloomsbury Group

Charleston Farmhouse

During the War, Forster was a peripheral member of the artistic and intellectual collective known as the Bloomsbury Group, which included famous writers and thinkers such as Virginia and Leonard Woolf, and John Maynard Keynes.

This group of friends and socialites alternated their time between the Bloomsbury area of London, the famous East Sussex locations; Charleston House and Monks House.

The Bloomsbury Set were often noted for the intensity of their friendships and relationships with each other, the result of which was a witticism suggesting that they ‘talked in circles, painted in squares, and loved in triangles’. Rumours of homosexual activity within the group further coupled with the fact that many members were conscientious objectors during the First World War, often saw them receive criticism.

However, because of their insular nature and their wider societal connections, the Bloomsbury Group were largely able to continue their activities in private. The end of the war and the growing fame of individual members did, however, lead to an eventual dispersal of the group in the inter-war years.

LGBT Rights after the First World War

Because of the general illegal nature of homosexuality in Britain, it was not actually prohibited in army regulations until 1955. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act decriminalised homosexual activity between two men over the age of 21 and in private. However, this only applied to England and Wales and did not cover the armed forces. Further legislation in the 1980s would decriminalise homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, in 2000, the ban on homosexuals serving in the military was finally lifted.

The post Homosexuality in the First World War appeared first on WW1 East Sussex.