Clio

#4

The Latymer History Magazine The Mau Mau rebellion

British colonialism in Canada
The Suez Crisis 1956
Shakespeare’s Agincourt
Revolution in Britian
The origins of a quote
Englaland’s finest
The Zong massacre
Queen Victoria
British Inventors
The evolution of theatre
The development of the English language
Slavery abolition in Britain
The East India Trading Company
Agincourt 1415
Boxing Britian

British Influence on History

Editor’s Letter

Dear Readers,

Welcome to Clio, Latymer's very own History magazine; researched,

written, and edited by the school's resident historians.

The fourth issue of the magazine considers British influence on the

course of history. Looking inward, Britain's development as a nation
offers up a path both of triumph and tumult; looking outward, her
projection on an international basis has exerted influence through
the languages of War, Empire, even language itself.

Once again our writers have brought forth a plethora of fascinating

and analytical content from all corners of history. A customary
thanks to Polly for her impeccable organisation and enthusiasm, and
to Sam, Conor and Miles for designing and compiling the issue.

Enjoy!

Your Editors

Editors:
Flo Beswick
Polly Holmes
Robert Johnson
Joe Levy-Brown
Tilly Stables
Daniel Weir

2
4 7 8 12
The Mau Mau The Eden Project- Once more unto
Revolution Suez Crisis of 1956 the breach:
Shakespeare’s
Agincourt

14 16 19
Fact File: The Zong The East India British Colonialism
Massacre Trading Company and the Aboriginal
People of Canada

22 24 28
Blue Plaques: REVOLUTION! British Inventors
Sir John Whitworth The British Way.

30 32 36
British Stereotypes: The Development Exploring Famous The Story of a
The Evolution of of the English Quotes and their link Picture: Englaland’s
Theatre Language to British History Finest

38 40 42 43
Britian: A Nation Agincourt 1415
Which Launched a
Movement to Abolish
the Slave Trade

Fact File: Queen Boxing Britian

Victoria

3
The Mau Mau
Rebellion By Lily Easton

George Orwell once described the British and their Empire itself as a pinnacle of freedom and liberal values. One of
as “A dull, decent people, cherishing and fortifying their these, which is only just being addressed, is the Mau Mau
dullness behind a quarter of a million bayonets.” The British rebellion of 1952-1960.
Empire oversaw some of the bloodiest oppression seen in Kenya had seen British colonial occupation since the late
recent history, whilst attempting to preserve their rapidly 19th century and was transformed into a crown colony in
crumbling empire. These atrocities are often omitted from 1920, with a population of 9,651 Europeans by 1921 due to
the history of a country which in modern times likes to see extensive migration, mainly by farmers searching for a better
life. Throughout this time,
there were multiple events
of noticeable resistance
to British colonial rule,
such as the Nandi revolt
of 1895-1905. The Kenyan
people at this time were
denied proper political
representation, and
were ostracized by much
of the White Kenyan
population who formed a
ruling minority. In order
to develop an effective
settler economy, land
was appropriated from a
number of tribal groups,
but especially the Kikuyu,
Mau Mau suspects in who lost 284 km2 of land, in order to redistribute it amongst
Nairobi, 1952 settlers. The Kikuyu thus resented both the loss of their
land and the poor treatment and wages they were given as
workers to the settlers. 1944 saw the formation of the Kenyan

4
African Study Union, which was a front for a political party
with strongly anti-colonial views. Jomo Kenyatta, later to
become Kenya’s first president, was an active member of this
party, and they pressed the colonial government for political
rights and land reforms, but in vain.
In 1952, attacks begun against settler farms, with the militant
branch of the KAU being given a name: Mau Mau. On the
were detained without trial, for periods of between 3 and 7
years and 11,000 were killed throughout the course of the
rebellion.
The detention camps used by the British in order to control
and illegally detain the Kikuyu insurgents saw appalling
conditions and unspeakable human rights abuses. They were
described by the attorney general of Kenya at the time as

‘Detention camps used by

9th October, Senior Chief Waruhiu, a key supporter of “distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany

British were “distressingly

the colonial government, was assassinated. This led to the or communist Russia”. This “detention and rehabilitation”

reminiscent of conditions
colonial government declaring a State of Emergency, before system was termed “The Pipeline” with detained inmates

in Nazi Germany”’
arresting 180 suspected Mau Mau insurgents. Ironically, being divided into three categories: ‘white’; ‘grey’ and ‘black’,
many of those arrested, such as Kenyatta, did not advocate with ‘white’ being the most compliant of the detainees and
violence and the leaders of the violent resistance fled arrest. ‘black’ the ‘hardcore’ of the Mau Mau, who refused to confess
The reaction then seen was as harsh as it was distorted by the their Mau Mau oath to the colonial authorities. Transit
colonial powers at the time. The Mau Mau were described as between camps provided little or no sanitation or food,
“an irrational force of evil, dominated by bestial impulses and and once arrived communication was allowed only within
influenced by world communism”, and the brutal attacks by the sleeping huts of the detainees. The poor sanitation of
the Mau Mau meant that the colonial government were able that camp meant that diseases like typhoid spread quickly
to completely dehumanise them and justify the inhumane amongst inmates, with camps such as Langata and GilGil
actions they then took. The Mau Mau was largely fought forced to close due to the rampant medical issues. Those
as a guerrilla war, with much of the fighting occurring in within the camps were used as forced labour on projects such
forests. Meanwhile, the colonial government strategically as a 37 mile long irrigation furrow and by 1955, the detention
resettled Kikuyu in ‘protected villages’, whilst in an attempt system had become formalised, with guards regularly
to control non-loyal Kikuyu tens of thousands were deported rotated to ensure that they did not develop relationships
to reserves, which soon became overcrowded and conditions with inmates. A system of informers developed within the
poor. Over the course of the rebellion, 100,000 Kikuyu camp, with those suspected of informing often strangled

British policemen
search the huts of
Mau Mau suspects

5
then mutilated. Those found being sworn into the Mau Mau
within camp were publicly hanged by colonial authorities, in
order to clamp down on activity within the camps. Torture
was also a regular feature of these detention camps, with
most detainees experiencing extreme physical violence,
including beatings, sexual violence, castration The effects
of which were worsened by many being denied access to
medical facilities.
Although the British forces eventually supressed the Mau
Mau rebellion, they did so at an enormous cost. As well as the
enormous damage they had inflicted on the people of Kenya,
the rebellion cost the British authorities over £55 million.
Kenya gained its independence in 1963, and was led by Jomo
Kenyatta. The British government is only now beginning to
take responsibility for the horror of the Mau Mau rebellion,
in 2013 paying out £19.9m to compensate for the torture
inflicted on now elderly Kenyans in the uprising. This action
has provided a precedent for the punishment of colonial
powers for the horrors they committed within their occupied
countries. In our classrooms we learn about the unspeakable
acts committed within the Holocaust and learn to condemn
such atrocities. However, I think it is equally important to
remember, and thus prevent the repetition of, the wrongs
committed by our own country, such as in the Mau Mau
camps which were once described by a judge as “Kenya's
Belsen”.

Propaganda poster distributed by

the British during the war

6
 Fact
File : The Zong
Name:
Massacre
The Zong Massacre
By Louisa
Owen

Date: 29th November 1781

What Happened: The British Zong trading ship set sail from Accra, Ghana, carrying approximately 442 slaves
- twice as many as the vessel should have had on board. Under the command of Captain
Luke Collingwood, the ship took the wrong route on its way to Jamaica. As a result, the
crew thought that they would not have enough water for all the people on board, so made
the decision to throw the slaves overboard. The believed they could claim insurance for the
loss of their ‘cargo’, which they would not be able to do if the slaves died on board. The ship
crew later justified their actions by saying that it was necessary to save the lives of the other
slaves. Over the course of three days, approximately 133 slaves were drowned. When the ship
reached the docks, they tried to claim insurance for the loss, but were denied on the grounds
that they destroyed their own property. The Zong Case went to court, but the judge Lord
Mansfield ruled in favour of the slave traders.
Important Figures: Luke Collingwood, Captain of the ship, made the decision to throw the slaves
overboard. Other important members of the crew included the first mate James
Kelsall and passenger Robert Stubs, who was an ex-slave ship owner and trader.
The other most important person, who changed the whole ending of the event,
was the judge, Lord Chief Justice, who ruled against the right of the slaves.
Impact: This event had a large impact on both British and international history, as it was one of the
most famous cases which illustrated the inhumanity of slavery. At the time, it didn’t get a lot of
publicity, however, as more and more people heard about the Zong massacre, they realised that
slavery was, in fact, very cruel. This meant that a lot of the general public started to question
whether slavery should be allowed. It also had a large impact on the families of those who
were killed.

The Slave Ship by

Turner, his response
to the mass murder
of slaves. Inspired by
the Zong Massacre.

7

T
he year is 1956, and Gamal Abdel Nasser
seizes control of the Republic of Egypt from his
predecessor in an election with only one name
on the ballots - his. He begins a series of far reaching
land reforms and turns the previously colonized state of
Egypt into a more communist-style state, introducing
nationalisation of all the country’s industries. Far up his list
was the Suez Canal, an extremely important thoroughfare for
the British, the Egyptians and the rest of the world.
History of the Suez
A little context is needed to understand the complex
historical and legal structures that surrounded the Canal at
8
By Liam Guermache
the time of Nasser’s nationalisation. The canal was opened
in 1869 after 10 years’ work, financed by both Britain and
France. The canal was operated by an Egyptian chartered
company and the area around the canal remained sovereign
Egyptian territory. The canal, at this time, helped many
European countries, especially those who paid for it, expand
and control their empires, particularly in the Far East.
Unfortunately, in 1875, the Egyptian ruler became heavily
embroiled in debt and financial crisis and had to sell his
shares in the canal company. Although the British were
more than willing buyers, they decided to invade the entire
country anyway in 1882.

Nasser changes everything
The British lived comfortably in the knowledge that the
Suez Canal was safe under their control, especially as they
still ruled the weak Kingdom of Egypt, but the coming to
power of Nasser in 1956 changed everything. After the Free
Officers Movement coup took place in 1952, the British had
to relinquish power in the region, but the Suez Canal stayed
under an uneasy British rule while the new Egypt sorted
itself out first; it took until 1956 for Egypt to stabilise under
Nasser’s rule and for him to begin his attack on the Suez.
Egypt vs UK vs Israel vs Iran vs USA vs USSR
Egypt and its canal were being pressured by a large number
of parties, all with different aims. The British had previously
angered the Egyptians with a heavy-handed attack on
an Egyptian police barracks in 1951 (one of the catalysts
for the coup the next year) and wanted reconciliation.
Agreements in October 1954 with Egypt led to an easing
of relations over the Suez, as the British agreed to begin
removing troops in 20 months and to leave Sudan by 1956.
Egypt also had aggressive aims to become the leader of the
Arab world, and to have Egypt at the helm of a Pan-Arab
coalition. Egypt and Iraq were jostling for this position and
Britain’s close relationship with Iraq angered Nasser. At the
same time, the US were also trying to get involved in order
to stop Soviet expansion in the area, but to no avail. They
attempted to create a Middle East Defense Organization
(MEDO) as a NATO equivalent for the Middle East, but
Nasser resisted. The US noticed that not only were the Arab
states more occupied with fighting each other, but that they
were "more fearful of Zionism than of the Communists",
according to Secretary of State, John Dulles. The Soviets,
under Khrushchev’s new leadership, decided Egypt was a
great foothold for increasing Soviet standing in the Middle
Mollet and Eden meeting
Mollet with the glasses
East. They made themselves available for Nasser to purchase
arms from, if the USA (Nasser’s first choice) were to back
down. Nasser made further moves to upset the USA, such
as recognizing the People’s Republic of China, and trying
to play the two superpowers off against one another. This,
in turn, resulted in the Americans bringing a halt to their
financing of the Aswan High Dam, thus Egypt had no option
but to turn to a willing Soviet Union for their arms and
infrastructure projects. As soon as the British troops left the
Suez, Nasser made his move.
Guy Mollet and Anthony Eden
On the 26th of July 1956, Nasser, impatient with Britain,
France and the USA, took the decision to nationalise the Suez
Canal. The Egyptian army rolled in, the previous operating
company was frozen and the canal closed to Israeli shipping.
The nationalisation surprised the UK and its Commonwealth
but the actions obviously threatened British interests across
the world. At the time, Eden was hosting a dinner for the
King and PM of Iran, who both advised Eden to “hit Nasser
hard, hit him soon, and hit him by yourself ”, an opinion
shared by much of the British public at the time. Across
the channel, French Premier Guy Mollet was outraged by
Nasser’s decision and was determined not to let him get
away with it, echoing the thoughts of the French public.
Three days later, the French cabinet decided upon military
action with Israel. Mollet had sacrificed his anti-colonialism
principles by embarking on the Algerian war, and prioritised
his relationship with NATO. As a result, he was very
9

offended at the USA’s laissez-faire attitude to the canal crisis.
Diplomacy leading up to the war
The USA tried to mediate and avoid a conflict by setting
up a conference of maritime nations that used the canal to
try to figure out a way to solve the conflict peacefully, but
without success. Nevertheless, the Americans still very
fervently warned that the USA would not support military
action, and that the general consensus in America was
against war. Unfortunately, both Eden and Harold Macmillan
misinterpreted Eisenhower’s warnings and took them to
mean that the USA wouldn’t intervene in case of war. Despite
the USA’s best intentions, France, Israel and the UK began
planning for war. Originally, there were two alliances;
France and Israel and Britain and France. This made for some
complicated preliminary planning but at France’s insistence,
the three countries banded together. The plan incorporated
the Israeli aims to reopen the Straits of Tiran to shipping,
to strengthen its southern border and to weaken what it
saw as a dangerous and hostile state. The French and British
wanted both efficient access to oil reserves and for access
to the remains of its empire. They also both wanted Nasser
10
Damaged Egyptian military
equipment
out of Egypt; France in particular because of his support in
the Algerian War of Independence. And with that, the three
nations went to war.
The Tripartite Aggression
Israeli forces swept into the Sinai on September 29th 1956,
and as a testament to their fighting force, held the entire
peninsula in seven days. British and French troops, headed
by airborne forces, invaded the canal zone on November
1st and their governments told an outraged world that their
invasion was to keep the warring Israel and Egypt apart.
Unfortunately, the UN (heavily backed by the US) mandated
a ceasefire after only 5 days, and in a twist of irony, the UK
and France’s only true objective – keep the Suez open –
wasn’t achieved as Nasser ordered the scuttling of 47 ships in
the canal to block it while he could.
Conclusion
This whole debacle was a landmark event in post-war British
history, it reordered the world as one in which Britain simply
was no longer a leader – a world that the likes of Anthony
Eden simply didn’t understand. The Suez Crisis marked
the end of Britain as a superpower; leaving it as a country
embroiled in post-war debt with an empire crumbling away.
This war was also seen by the USA as a colonial war in a
truly post-colonial time. It also showed the important role
that the USA played within the UK’s politics: the USA’s
threat to end their “special relationship” and deny them a loan
meant Britain’s only choice was to back down.
It is also important to look at the leaders involved in the
Suez crisis, Anthony Eden, Guy Mollet and Nasser himself.
They, after all, made the critical decisions that led to this
whole debacle. According to a Guardian article, Eden was a
member of Churchill’s ‘old guard’ and that “was a curiously
inadequate man…..For all his experience, he never absorbed
the simple post-war truth: that the world had changed
forever.” His diplomatic skill in WWII as foreign secretary
was overshadowed by his failings in 1956. The crisis took
its toll on him, as three days after the British invaders came
home, he left for Jamaica to recover and eventually resigned
on January 9th, leaving Harold Macmillan to take his place.
He left his mark on the public eye however, as two opinion
polls conducted in 2004 and 2010 by the University of Leeds,
rating post-war Prime Ministers left Eden in last place.
Guy Mollet, French Prime Minister at the time was also
heavily damaged by Suez Crisis, but managed to keep
his position as head of the French state. Despite his main
reservation that a socialist like him didn’t have the guts to go
to war with Egypt, his decision to go to war was much to his
detriment.
Nasser’s move to nationalise the canal, made without any
consultation, was a surprising one, and one that showed
a lack of rational decision making according to Egyptian
historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan. However, Great Britain
and France were both humiliated by the episode; only Nasser
gained strength. The UK was left with the stinging message
that it was no longer a world power to be reckoned with.

11
 ‘Once more
unto the
breach’:
Shakespeare’s
Agincourt
‘We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
- King Henry V, Act 4 Scene 3
These lines spoken before the battle of Agincourt from
Shakespeare’s King Henry V have become one of the most
iconic speeches in British history, supposedly read out by
generals and sports captains alike on the eve of battle, be
it on the blood-stained field or rugby pitch. Shakespeare’s
words have resonated with people across the centuries.
It’s hard not to feel an emboldening sense of brotherhood
listening to it performed on stage, so I cannot imagine the
incredible effectiveness of its persuasion on those who
actually had a battle to fight.
But why has the speech Shakespeare wrote for this battle
been used so often throughout history? And why has
Agincourt become such a symbol of nationalistic pride? It
comes down to the power of Shakespeare’s rhetoric combined
12
By Luca Ferraro
with his account of England’s unlikely victory against
supposedly insurmountable odds, beating the French in a
display of English stoicism, relentless determination and
above all their unbeatable skill on the battlefield.
However, contrary to Shakespeare’s portrayal of England
as the plucky underdog with almost no hope of victory,
the real situation was significantly different. Despite being
outnumbered, the English had a large number of archers who
were very well trained, unquestionably more skilful than
the French archers, of whom there were very few. Combined
with some ingenious tactics and an inspirational leader with
a clear chain of command, it led to a victory that was less
unlikely than some myths (and indeed Shakespeare) would
suggest.
But it was Shakespeare’s version, not the reality, that
captured people’s imagination, and it’s not hard to see why,
given that anyone could see it being performed. Even those
who could not read had easy access to the play, with its
rousing addresses and thrilling battle scenes. It also had a
more general application; it was easy to use to inspire soldiers
in any war, either to conjure up national pride or just to prove
that any odds are beatable. All armies, small or big, can see
themselves as the courageous English when confronted by a
more powerful foe, the Goliath to their David, the France to
their England.
The story of Agincourt also rings true with the supposed
‘British mentality’, the values and strengths associated
with our little island. Even though most of these attributes
are stereotypes, they are clearly reflected in the myths
 surrounding the battle, in terms of a stoical attitude to great
adversity. This has led to Agincourt’s use as a reminder
of British strength even in the face of dire odds. A prime
example of this was just before the start of the Napoleonic
wars, during post-revolutionary times; a letter in The Times
from 1794 started with the words ‘Countrymen, remember
Agincourt!’, just one of many allusions to the battle, intended
as a morale-booster.
2.
However, this mentality was not always appropriate,
especially coming to the end of the First World War, when
Henry V fell out of fashion because of widespread war-
weariness now that everyone knew of the horrors of battle;
many critics complained that Henry was merely a jingoistic
fool, willing to win at the cost of his men. This was on top
of the fact that France was now a significant ally, so it was
not tactful to put on a play admonishing the arrogance and
failings of the French.
But the play returned to public favour with the advent of the
Second World War, when in May 1942 Lawrence Olivier was
convinced to do a reading of the ‘Once more unto the breach’
and ‘St Crispin’s Day’ speeches, which were broadcast on BBC
Radio under the title ‘Into Battle’. Olivier later made a film of
1.
1. Poster for the film 2. The battle of
Henry V Agincourt 1415
the play, directed by and starring himself; it was reported to
have delighted Prime Minister Winston Churchill with its
potential as morale-boosting propaganda. Some politicians
were concerned about the effect the film would have on
Franco-British relations. However, they were ignored and the
film was passed for general release.
The next on-screen incarnation of Henry was a less positive
one. The 1989 film made by Kenneth Branagh portrayed the
battle with lots of gore and mud, a stark contrast to Olivier’s
stylised Technicolor Agincourt. It reflected an era that was
overshadowed by the cold war, and the constant threat of
nuclear destruction.
The changeability of the way Agincourt was presented just
served to demonstrate what Shakespeare had done. Through
a skilfully written narrative he had made a play that was,
quite literally, all things to all men; it was now the story of a
battle, the depictions of which changed to suit opinions of the
time. It could be used as a tool to promote or to warn against
war, to motivate or to discourage troops, or to glorify or
condemn battle in the eyes of the public.
He may not have realised it at the time, but what
Shakespeare had created was a political weapon, that would
be wielded on many occasions throughout History to great
effect. On the surface the play is just a glorification of a battle
that did not have much effect on the geo-political situation at
the time, but if you dig a little deeper, the play, with all of its
inspiring speeches, is actually something that might just have
influenced the course of History after all.
13
 Blue Plaques:
Sir John Whitworth
Ellena Dracou found the Blue Plaque of someone who had a large impact on British
history but is perhaps not as well known as he should be.
Joseph Whitworth’s
blue plaque in
Derbyshire
An etching of Sir
Joseph Whitworth
14
Sir Joseph Whitworth served as a mechanical engineer at the height of the
Industrial Revolution. He is best known for devising the British Standard
Whitworth System (BSW) that essentially pioneered mass production in
modern British industry, as it was the first time widespread techniques were
being applied to all aspects of industry such as marine engineering.
Joseph’s plaque is located in Derbyshire. Following his apprenticeship, he
moved to London where he developed his mechanical skills alongside James
Nasmyth (inventor of the steam hammer) and Henry Maudslay, the inventor
of the screw-cutting lathe and the man who taught Whitworth the skills
of engineering for the outset of his career. Whitworth had researched the
standardization of gauges for many years, and in the 1840s, concluded that
gauges graduated to a fixed scale should be used as a constant measure. This
discovery would enable any manufacturer to mass-produce interchangeable
machine parts at much lower costs. From here, it was a short step to standard
screw threads, the invention for which Whitworth is best known.
Whitworth’s standard screw system, invented in 1841, specified a thread
angle of 55 degrees. Whitworth’s uniform system for screw threads was the
first of its kind, and was highly crucial in improving accuracy standards for
the majority of Victorian machinery. Despite Whitworth being a pacifist, his
system was adopted by several industries including the British Navy for the
production of gunboats in the Crimean War. By 1858, it was used universally.
It was at the Great Exhibition in 1851 that Whitworth was recognized as the
foremost mechanical engineer of the time, winning more awards then any
other exhibitor throughout the whole event.
 The whitworth rifle was found to be superior
to the Lee Enfield in every way, but was four
times more expensive to produce so was not
adopted by the British Army

Whitworth also took a keen interest in engineering education his death in 1887, the company merged with ‘Armstrong,
and set up 30 scholarships throughout his lifetime at what Mitchell and Co’ to form ‘Armstrong Whitworth’ – a British
are now the University of Manchester and the University of manufacturing leader, which now fronts this legacy.
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST). In
1868, he wrote to the Prime Minster of the time, Benjamin
Disraeli, saying that the scholarships were intended to
“encourage students to combine practice with theory, and
artisans to combine theory with perfection in workmanship”. It
was through his persistence that it became customary for boys
to learn the correct use of tools from the beginning of their
schooling.
In 1874, Whitworth converted his extensive works into a
company, entitled ‘Joseph Whitworth and Co’. Following

By Ellena Dracou Screw-making

machine from 1871

15
 The East India Trading
Company
The island of St. Helena, owned by the East India Company
A little over four centuries ago, a company was founded
that would account for half the world’s trade, and rule over
what was the beginning of the British Empire in India. A
company formed merely to pursue trade with the West
Indies, it acquired its own private army and stood steadfast
in its rule over global commerce for more than 40 years. So
how did the East India Company manage to acquire an entire
subcontinent, and did it cause its own demise?
After the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, Queen
Elizabeth I found herself presented with a petition to allow
London merchants to sail to the Indian Ocean. There were
many British investors and businessmen who had seen the
Dutch making money from importing spices and who were
keen to exploit the potentially lucrative trade in the East
Indies.The first few attempts were, however, unsuccessful,
with ships lost at sea or never quite making it to their
destination. It was only due to a group nicknamed “the
Adventurers” ( who kept trying to reach the East Indies but
never quite made it) constantly petitioning the Queen to
support them, that on 31 December 1600, she eventually
16
By Lydia Stables
granted a royal Charter to “George, Earl of Cumberland,
and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses” under the name
Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading
with the East Indies. The company struggled to get a foothold
in the spice trade due to fierce ompetition from the Dutch
East India Company, but centred its profits around imports of
pepper from Java.
The East India Company did not have an easy start.
There was hostility between European trading companies,
especially the Portuguese and Dutch. The Company’s first
major trading expedition left for Asia in 1601 with four
ships and returned two years later with five hundred tons of
pepper- a lucrative bounty. There were, however, frequent
skirmishes between the Dutch and the British over spices,
yet in the Battle of Swally in 1612 the English traders came
out triumphant. This victory led the company to set up a
series of factories in Surat in India with the blessing of the
Mughal Emperor Nuruddin Salim Jahangir. In return for
these exclusive rights the Company would give the Emperor
goods from the European market. Nuruddin wrote to James
I that he hoped ‘[their] friendship may be interchanged and
eternal’. Thus the East India Company’s takeover had begun.
Although only established in a small corner of India, it was a
start.
It didn’t take long for the expansion to commence. The
company’s leadership was smart, realising that sticking to
spices would limit its expansion and it would therefore not
achieve global domination Hence, it turned its attention to
cotton and silk from India.
By 1647 the company had 23 factories in India, and had
trading posts in Surat, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta by the
1690s. The major factories became walled forts (Fort William
in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras, and the Bombay Castle
in Bombay). The main-stay business was in cotton, silk,
indigo dye, saltpetre (also known as potassium nitrate, used
in gunpowder and fertilizers) and tea. The company taxed
people who lived within its boundaries and had an army that
was ready to defeat any insurgents.
The prosperity that the senior officers of the company
enjoyed became obvious as they returned to Britain as
wealthy businessman, capable of accumulating massive
estates and leading the most important business ventures of
the day. Even more important for the expansionist ambitions
of the company was its growing political power; the company
developed a considerable sway in the English
A Watercolour of an East India Official in the
centre of a procession
17
 Parliament. This brought pressure from other tradesman
and previous associates of the company who were jealous of
the firm’s Indian income, and a deregulating act was passed
in 1694. This allowed any English business or firm to trade
with India, unless stated otherwise, thereby voiding the
exclusive charter that had been in place for almost a century
protecting the interests of the East India Company. Backed
by £2 million of state money, a new parallel East India
Company was born, namely the English Company Trading
to the East Indies. The two companies competed, both in
England and India, to dominate trade. The only solution was
to merge, and in 1708 they formed the United Company of
Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. The new
even more powerful company lent the Treasury £3.2 million
in return for exclusive privileges for three years, after which
a review would occur. The agreement gave the new company
un-precedented power and set up an ongoing battle between
company and parliament. By 1720, 15% of British imports
were Indian, with almost all passing through the company.
The Industrial Revolution, however, was about to change the
fortunes of the East India Company. England had grasped
onto the textiles trade, and was producing the light and
colourful garments favoured by the upper classes in its own
factories, which had previously been produced by skilled
weavers in India. This forced the East India Company to look
at other markets to maintain its profits. It decided on Chinese
tea - a popular beverage throughout Europe. This was the
18
beginning of the downturn in the company’s fortunes. To
buy the tea, the company started trading illegally in opium-
growing it in its Indian territories and selling it to China.
It used the ill gotten gains to fund its tea business. In 1839
Commissioner Lin Zexu spoke out against the company,
which was using its warships to destroy Chinese vessels. ‘…
there is a class of evil foreigner that makes opium and brings
it for sale, tempting fools to destroy themselves, merely in
order to reap a profit...’ The Opium Wars were fought to
destroy the importation of opium into China and at the same
time,India began to rebel against the Company. Many of the
rebels in India were members of the Company’s own army
and the bloodshed was devastating with many Indian and
British soldiers and civilians massacred.
The Indian rebellion was the end of the Company. The
British government, alert to the dangers of the Company’s
power, absorbed its possessions and armed forces in 1858.
The East India Company stands unique in the history of
Britain for being a commercial organisation with the power
of a country. Its greed and the tides of history were its
downfall, but its achievements were remarkable.
The trademark of the
East India Company,
most likely used
for letterheads or
footers.
 British
Colonialism
The British colonised Canada for over 200 years. It was
period that extended from the early explorers of the 17th
Century to Confederation and the uniting of the colonies in

and the
the mid 19th Century. British colonialism established Canada
as a largely English speaking country and helped to populate
the Upper North America with millions of European
migrants. But was the British presence harmful or beneficial

Aboriginal
to the Aboriginal people of Canada?
British colonialism in Canada helped to create new cities and
trading opportunities for Aboriginal people. For example,

People of
after the ‘Seven Years War’, Britain became the main colonial
power in Canada, and took over France’s commercial
partnership with the Aboriginal peoples. Partnership
could be found in the fur trade (the main export of North

Canada
America at the time) and the food trade. Indeed, Aboriginal
people played a key role in the booming Fur Trade of 17th
and 18th centuries, as seen by their trading with British
settlers in Newfoundland and their role in the Hudson’s Bay
Company’s trading activities around the Bay. Furthermore,
By Kiran Bryant
several military alliances were formed between groups of
Aboriginal people and British militias, which provided
security and safety at times of great uncertainty and many
territorial disputes. By forming commercial and military
partnerships with British settlers, the Aboriginal people gave
themselves more security while ensuring a stable income,
and a slice of the expanding, and highly profitable, Fur Trade.
By entering into these partnerships, the British were able
to ensure stability within Canada, while forming profitable
partnerships themselves. All of this can be seen to have
A mixed
shown clearly that a British presence in Canada benefitted aboriginal
Aboriginal People, both economically and in terms of fur trader
security as well.
However, British colonists can be claimed to have Circa.
aggressively tried to subjugate the Aboriginal people of 1870
Canada and to denigrate their culture. For example, as the

19
 For example, as the
industrial shift towards
mining and farming
took place, Aboriginal
people came to be viewed
not as partners, but
competitors. This led
to policies that tried to
confiscate Aboriginal land.
With Aboriginal people
being increasingly seen
as obstructing British
economic aspirations many
Aboriginal people were
20
forcibly evicted from their An illustration of the
land to make way for British Hudson Bay Trading
settlers. This vast and unjust Post, 1800s
abuse of power gained
the British much land at
the expense of Aboriginal
people. The resultant
economic boom attracted
more migrants to Canada,
which further pushed
Aboriginal people into
the minority. In addition
to the monopolisation
of Aboriginal land, the
government also assimilated Aboriginal Culture into
‘Canadian Culture’ with a series of initiatives designed
at promoting European Ideals (such as agriculture and
sedentary living). This was a clear attempt to impose
Western Culture onto Aboriginal people, and represents the
clear, and intended, harm that British colonialists caused
to Aboriginal people. Furthermore, the government also
attempted the Christianization of aboriginal people with
the ‘Indian Act’ of 1867, which imposed sanctions on those
who didn’t convert to Christianity. Even though many more
attempts at assimilation were made after confederation, they
were clearly influenced by the legacy of British colonialism
in Canada. Indeed, as much of this attempted assimilation
and aggressiveness towards Aboriginal people occurred after
the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century, it could be
said that the shift towards industrialism caused much of the
conflict between Aboriginal people and British settlers.
It is only possible to conclude that British colonialism in
Canada was extremely harmful to the Aboriginal People of
Canada. Despite some economic benefits and protection in
the first half of the 17th century, the persistent and ruthless
subjugation and attempted assimilation of the Aboriginal
people in the 18th century, and even post-Confederation,
ensures that the legacy of the British Empire in Canada is one
of harm and suffering, rather than economic prosperity.

An aboriginal
snowshoe maker

Circa 1900

21
 REVOLUTION!
The British Way
How Revolutionary changes
in Britain shaped the modern
world
The dictionary tells us that revolution – in
the sense of political or social change -
means “dramatic and wide-reaching change
in conditions, attitudes, or operation”.
Often “revolution” is associated with a
change of government by force. The French
Revolution of 1789, for example, involved
the destruction of an old regime and the
overthrowing of the
monarchy. But revolutions
aren’t always about mutiny
or the seizing of power.
A revolution can just be
‘dramatic and wide-reaching
change’, a description
that is a perfect fit for the
An etching of work industrial and agricultural revolutions in
in an iron factory, Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries.
workers using
industrial equipment The term ‘Agricultural Revolution’ was first
used by the historian Arnold Toynbee and
it refers to the period in Britain from the
early 1700s to the later part of the century
when new ways of farming were adopted
that led to an increase in food production.
Not all historians agree with Toynbee’s view
of what happened during this revolution or
when it started, but the changes included the
adopting of new crops, new farming ideas
and breeding better quality animals. There
was also an increase in the size of farms, as
22
By Claudia Whiterow
farmers began enclosing more fields that
surrounded their farms. The products of
having larger farms increased wealth and
encouraged more farmers to do the same.
The huge increase in farm production was
a driving force in propelling the industry
and population growth. This population
growth of around 260 per cent between 1750
and 1900 - was a vital part of the industrial
revolution.
The Industrial Revolution had an even
greater impact on people’s lives and in
shaping the modern world. At the very
heart of this revolution was the invention
of new machinery which sped up the ability
to manufacture goods and helped to create
new types of tools. Moreover, as steam
power replaced human and animal power,
industry expanded enormously. It led to
the creation of factories and ultimately to
the establishment of a proper formal school
system.
During this revolution, Britain transformed
from being an agricultural society to an
affluent industrialised one where people
moved away from the rural locations to live
in urban areas and cities. Engineers came up
with new ways of moving goods and people
faster. Roads were improved and canals were
built – by 1850 the canal network was 4,000
miles long.
James Watt was one of the period’s most
influential inventors (he eventually had a
unit of measurement of electricity named
after him: the watt, in honour of his
achievements.) Watt’s inventions include
the rotary engine and the double action
engine. Despite being born nearly half a
century after the first working steam engine
was patented, Watt’s new ideas were crucial
to the efficiency of steam engines across
Britain. After patenting his first, improved
steam engine in 1769, Watt and Matthew
Boulton became partners in 1775 and
became the founders of the most important
engineering firm in the country. Their
orders came from mine owners, paper, flour,
cotton and iron mills and distilleries and
canals.
Amongst the constantly improving
industries, textiles and iron were the most
rapidly advancing. Inventions such as the
Flying Shuttle, invented in 1733 by John
Kay, were the turning points for the textiles
industry. Before the flying shuttle, the
process of cloth making was long and slow
as only the width of a person’s arms could be
made at a time. However, after its invention
the amount of cloth produced rocketed and
helped create more employment in making
spinning machines, as a shortage of thread
became a problem faced by industry. The
spinning Jenny was the answer to the thread
problems. James Hargreaves spent time
considering how to improve the thread
making process and, in time, increased the
spinners’ productivity, meeting the demand
for yarn and thread.
John
Kay’s
industrial career continued as he successfully
teamed up with Richard Arkwright in
the 1750s and during the late 1760s, the
two developed a working machine that
span four strands of thread at once. This
then increased to 96 strands and caused
Arkwright to pay for a patent that stopped
others copying his invention. The machine
later became known as a Water Frame, as it
was powered by a water wheel. In modern
money, Arkwright made about 30 million
pounds from his inventions.
In 1769 Richard Arkwright created a
factory near Derby which is considered to
be the first proper factory in England. By
employing
all the
highly
skilled
workers
in the area
and placing
them in
his new
factory,
Arkwright
managed
to make the mills more efficient, producing A spinning Jenny -
more items as the new workers understood The invention which
his machinery and could work at speed. solved the thread
This system spread and soon the old ways shortage
of skilled workers making things either at
home or in smaller sheds came to an end.
The Arkwright factory was admired and
copied by many around the world. It was one
of the key developments that marked the
ending of an “old regime” and the beginning
of a new one.
A very early steam
locomotive
23
 Famous Molly Foster and Raffaella Culora

Quotes
explore the meaning and story
behind a quote and the link the
quote has to British history.

24
 ‘The Empire on which the sun
never sets’
By Molly Foster

‘T
he empire on which the sun never sets’ is the phrase that describes the romantic
attitude that the British had towards Imperialism. The poetic sentiment of this phrase
encapsulated the sense of the Empire being expansive – a fact that brought it growth and
prosperity.
The original phrase, ‘el imperio en el que nunca se pone el sol’ is thought to have come from
16th century Spain. At this time the British Empire spanned territories in the Americas, Asia,
Europe, North Africa and the Pacific. The phrase only became widely used in the 18th to early
20th centuries when the expansion of the British Empire was at its height. By 1922 the British
Empire controlled ¼ of global land. It was in this time period that it became common for
world maps to colour the territories of Britain, and the map below is a famous example of such
propaganda that glorified and celebrated colonialism.
The phrase was also a form of propaganda. The idea that the British Empire
experiences constant light is a hopeful, favourable representation of its size and expansion.
The very fact that it remains well known even today shows how memorable the phrase was
and is a reminder of how desirable the British found colonialism. Indeed, by very definition
imperialism is not only the ‘policy of extending a country’s power through colonisation’ but
more disturbingly ‘the promotion of the imperialist nation and empire’s interests over those
of dependent states and territories’. In Britain undoubtedly the people benefitted – as always
the upper classes more than any, with their captive market, trade triangle of slaves and
commodities and extensive ability to cheaply exploit resources and labour from the territories.
However, the empire still had a large impact on the lower socio-economic groups of Britain
too: the trade capacity meant factory owners had huge markets for goods, and so jobs were
plentiful in British industry. Moreover the influx of various goods from the empire meant
commodities like sugar became readily available to lower-class Britain.
Perhaps it unsurprising the people of Britain felt pride in their empire: for them
the personal benefits from British prosperity outweighed the distant brutality. This distance
may explain the devastating fact that the British public hailed the leader of the Amritsar
Massacre in India as a British hero – raising £26,000 in his honour. It may also explain how
Britain perpetuated the slave trade for over 100 years, with 3.4mn enslaved Africans being
transported to America alone and the fact that the British were responsible for the deaths of
10% of the Boer population in concentration camps in a single year.
The British felt a dangerous pride in the Empire, despite these atrocities. What is truly
terrifying is that this pride has not faded: a 2014 YouGov poll showed 59% of Britons felt proud
of the Empire, 22% did not know and only 19% said they felt ashamed. Attitudes to the empire,
summed up as pride and arrogance by this quote, seem to have remained relatively unchanged.

25
 Nell Gwynn

By Raffaella Culora

The mistress of King Charles II, a famous actress and occasional cross dresser – Nell Gwynn
was the living symbol of the Restoration. She was beloved by the public who enjoyed her
refreshing sense of humour and can be described as an early feminist who broke many social
barriers. Her rags-to-riches life story in the 17th Century is one that has inspired the new play
‘Nell Gwynn’– but is it really deserving of being told in West End’s Apollo Theatre?
It is certainly an interesting one. Nell’s life story includes the cross dressing period
between 1663-1667 when she wore a false beard and went by the name ‘William Nell’, and
her alcoholic mother who ran a ‘bawdy house’ (brothel). Nell’s career in acting began with her
and her sister Rose becoming ‘orange girls’, who were sparsely clothed young women selling
oranges to the audience at Drury Lane Theatre. Here she was exposed to London’s higher
society and theatre life. King Charles II had recently reinstated theatre after an eighteen
year ban imposed by the Puritans during which time, pastimes regarded as frivolous (such
as theatre) had been prohibited. Another of his early acts as King was to legalise acting as a
profession for women when before this, women’s parts had been played by boys or men. This
meant that less than a year after becoming an orange girl, she
could join the rank of actresses at Bridges Street. She soon
found fame in the new form of restoration comedy, starring
in comedies such as The Mad Couple by James Howard and
The Maiden Queen by John Dryden.
As one of King Charles II’s many mistresses, Nell became
rivals with another of his mistresses named Louise de
Kérouaille, who was the Duchess of Portsmouth and was
nicknamed ‘Catholic whore’ by the public. Nell was passing
through Oxford one day and was mistaken for Louise de
Kérouaille by a mob, which then began to push around her
coach and heckle that she was the ‘Catholic whore’. As a
response, she put her head out of the window and said, while
smiling:

One of Gwynn’s
rivals, Louise de
Kérouaille.

26
 “Pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant whore”
Despite being caricatured as unintelligent and foolish, this shows that Nell had an
apt natural wit. Not only was she one of the first English women to earn a living by acting,
breaking cultural barriers and serving as a role model for later generations of actresses, but she
was also described by Restoration poet John Dryden as having “heart and some sense in her
head”. These are certainly the qualities of a protagonist that is needed on our stages.

A West end performance of Nell Gywnn. One

of many theatre productions on her life.

27
 British
Inventors By Obomate briggs

Britain is a nation of inventors, from the thermos flask by

Sir James Dewar in 1802, to the vacuum cleaner by Hubert
Cecil Booth in 1909- both inventors I’m sure you’re likely
to have never heard of as their inventions were not of
great significance. However even British inventors who’s
innovative ideas have had a major impact on our world today
are unknown, and so here is a rundown of a couple of our
most influential inventions, which will hopefully boost the
pride you have in this great country.
DNA profiling was discovered in 1984 by Sir Alec Jeffery’s at
the University of Leicester. DNA profiling (also called DNA
finger printing, DNA testing, or DNA typing) is a forensic
technique used to identify individuals by characteristics
of their DNA. Even though it is used in less than 1% of all
criminal cases, DNA profiling has helped to acquit or convict
suspects in many of the most violent crimes, including
countless rapes and murders. When used correctly, DNA
profiling is a powerful forensic tool. It can be used to quickly
eliminate a suspect, saving time in searches for perpetrators.
It can also provide compelling evidence to support a
conviction and, most importantly, reduce the chances of
a wrongful conviction. Here is a real life case where DNA

DNA fingerprints
of two children,
the bands marked
in blue match the
father and the bands
marked in red match
the mother.

28
profiling changed everything:
In 1987, Florida’s Assistant State’s Attorney, Tim Berry began
collaborating with forensic director Michael Baird to determine how
DNA could be used in identification. After a serial rapist terrorized
23 women in Orlando, Tommie Lee Andrews was caught by two
fingerprints left on a victim’s window, identification by a victim in
a line-up, and because the same blood type was left at each scene.
After two retrials, during which time Baird had been both
meticulously processing the DNA evidence and Barry preparing
compelling legal briefs, in the final trial Andrews guilt was proven
by his DNA ,as genetic profiling was admitted for the first time,
which set an important legal precedence.
Justice was served; a danger to society faced the consequences
of his actions and was punished and his surviving victims
could go to sleep at night in peace knowing that he would not
strike again. This is only one example of how influential this
innovation has been and many more lives have been touched
by this invention. Because of its far reach and its impact on
society even to this day I believe that this is one invention
and inventor that should be acknowledged by all.
Another major invention that needs acknowledgment is the
creation of the World Wide Web by Sir Tim Berners-Lee
in 1989, while he was trying to find a new way for scientists
to easily share the data from their experiments. Hypertext
and the internet already existed at this point but no one had
thought of a way to use the internet to link one document
directly to another. This invention was vital as it opened up
the internet to everyone, not just scientists and connected the
world in a way that was not possible before and made it much
easier for people to get information, share and communicate.
Many people think that the internet and the World Wide
Web are the same thing. While they are closely linked, they
are very different systems. The internet is a huge network
of computers all connected together. The World Wide Web
(‘www’ or ‘web’ for short) is a collection of webpages found
on this network of computers. Your web browser uses the
internet to access the web. So when you get home from
school and go on the internet, you are actually looking at
some of the World Wide Web
The web allowed people to share their work and thoughts
through social networking sites, blogs and video sharing. To
judge the significance of something one must consider the
long term effects of it and the range in which it spreads to.
The web is still changing today. Search engines have become
better at reading, understanding and processing information.
They have found clever ways to find the content we want
and can even show us other things that might interest us,
‘US’ meaning people all over the globe. In this day and age
it would seem unfathomable to even comprehend a world in
which this did not exist even though it has only been around
for quite a short period of time. The impact it has made
should allow even greater things to come from it and more
history to be made.
So, when acknowledging the inventor one must acknowledge
where he or she came from, which plays an important
role in their lives. Being from the same country there is a
sense of kinship and so through this we take pride in their
achievements as if they were our own, much like the feeling
one gets when your team scores. Although in this article
there are only two inventions mentioned, I hope that the
pure scale of them will encourage you to find out more on
how your fellow countrymen and women have changed the
world, for the better.
29
 British Stereotypes:
The Evolution of Theatre
The British male and female stereotypes are present in many
plays and films that are performed in modern theatres all
around the world. This alone proves that stereotypes have
had a great effect on the evolution of theatre, as it had not
always been the case that foreign characters and themes
could appear in a different country. When the concept of a
‘gentleman’ or a ‘lady’ is thought of, the characteristics are
more or less the same each time: well spoken, a love of tea
and impeccable manners. This unfortunately leaves out a
large chunk of the population in Britain.
The English playwright most famous around the
world is William Shakespeare, known best for his comedies
and tragedies. He cannot be named a misogynist, as he lived
in a time when misogyny was not a known concept, but his
views on women and gender differences are not necessarily
the ones expected today. By constantly making men superior
to women, he only displayed the supposed inferiority of the
female gender, and concealed the many aspects in which
they could rival men. It is wrong to say that Shakespeare’s
perspective on gender equality is socially unacceptable, but
his use of the norm on gender roles at the time was what
people found amusing, and part of what made his work so
popular.
This is relevant to later theatre as it has formed
a general stereotype: the view that women were naturally
submissive and could never surpass men. Shakespeare was so
well-known that his plays were the building blocks for later
character models and beliefs. He had, quite literally, given the
30
By Yiren Zhong
world a formed and resolute impression of what gentlemen
should be like, and what Englishmen appeared to be. This
made foreigners envious of the English life and want to use
more of it in their own plays, which in return caused there to
be a more frequent use of the stereotype.
After Shakespeare, another aspect of theatre that
has been made famous by the English is melodrama in the
19th century. Melodrama is a dramatic work in which the
plot is sensationalised, and music is incorporated with the
action. It originated in France, but didn’t have any of the
recognised characteristics that it is known for. It was in
England that melodrama had the stereotyped characters (i.e.
hero, damsel in distress, villain...etc.) and the outrageously
exaggerated actions added in. This was so popular it spread
quickly through Europe, and was soon being performed in a
number of western theatres.
The melodramatic acting techniques were very successful
at the time, but they were soon replaced by naturalism,
which is a completely opposite style of acting as it is much
more realistic. The feature of melodrama that has remained
constant throughout the 20th century is the stereotypes.
Whilst melodrama was still popular, the first
ever silent film was made in 1891. Silent films came from
America, and in a similar manner to melodrama, they
were often epics or romances with typecast characters that
audiences could relate to in order to in an attempt to be as
popular as melodrama had been. It was a step in the right
direction, and in a way silent films had an advantage as they
Theater goers in the twenties
could be transported to other countries more easily, and
spread more quickly as they were available to a much larger
audience.
For the silent film industry, the ‘silence’ amidst the action
was not so much a holdback as people were still not used to
seeing anything performed on a screen instead of on a stage,
so the novelty of watching an actual film was exhilarating
enough for everyone to enjoy it. Because there was no
dialogue, the actors had to convey what was happening
by exaggerated gestures and facial expressions, and thus
the characters tended to be the ones that everyone can
recognise. These stereotypes could have been influenced
by melodrama, but they could also have been forced there
because of the technical challenges of have no sound, which
meant that the storyline could not be too complicated.
Nevertheless, the British stereotype was still passed on from
theatre to film, and therefore from Britain to the rest of the
world.
The most successful piece of British film is the
James Bond series, the first movie (Dr No, 1962) going
worldwide almost immediately. By the mid-20th century,
plays had gone out of fashion and had been replaced by
televisions and cinemas (movie theatres). The reason this
franchise was so popular was not just because of the action,
but also due to the dazzlingly handsome protagonist. To
foreign audiences especially, Bond’s crisp suits and his bad
boy attitude were the epitome of male perfection, and gave a
goal for men to strive to. He was the ultimate role model, and
the trick behind making fans love him even after 26 films is
that he lives the perfect life, so there is as much envy present
for James Bond as there is admiration.
The British stereotypes have had a large role to play in the
evolution of theatre in that they have introduced character
models that are now used worldwide and have also promoted
British values. From Shakespeare, to melodrama, to silent
films and to what is performed in theatres today, the British
stereotypes have been transported from one country to the
rest of the world. What is expected out of a piece of drama
has changed over the years, and so the quality of a play or a
film has also evolved alongside the rising expectations.
31
The Development
of the English
Language

Luke Skarparis
32
 Part of the poem
Beowulf on a page
from the Nowell
Codex written in
the11th century.

English today is one of the most widespread and important subsequently put in place by polytheism after the
languages in the world with an estimated 1.5 billion total the foundations of Old fall of the Roman Empire.
speakers worldwide. It serves a role as an international English. The invading tribes These missionaries replaced
common language, being the official language of the UN, EU drove out the native Celts the previously used rune
and many other major organisations. English can be found to the remote areas of the system and incorporated
all over the world, in use in all areas of life, and with near island and the new language the Latin alphabet into the
unlimited reach and scope. However, this was not always soon became dominant. language, marking the birth
the case. Only through a remarkable history of resilience, The next major step in the of written English. Over
adaptation and absorption has English managed to spread evolution of the language the following centuries the
beyond our tiny isle and into use as the global language of the occurred in the 6th century, language split into 4 major
modern age. when Pope Gregory sent dialects: Northumbrian,
The origins of English can be traced back to the 5th century missionaries to reconvert West Saxon, Kentish and
AD with the invasion of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes the British to Christianity, Mercian.
from Europe, who spoke similar Germanic languages and which had been replaced

33
 Literature in Old English began to emerge following the
adoption of the Latin alphabet - primarily religious and legal
works but also heroic poetry, the most famous of which being
the 3,183 line epic Beowulf. Written sometime between
the 8th and 11th century in a combination of Old English
dialects, it detailed the battles of the eponymous hero against
the monster Grendel and its mother.
The invasions of the Danish Vikings in the 8th and 9th
centuries brought English into contact with Old Norse,
leaving us with over 1000 Norse-derived words in our
language today, including smile, sister, husband and silver.
Alfred the Great also played a significant role in the
development of the language during his reign (871-899)
aiming to improve the literacy
of his subjects by personally
translating various texts ‘[there are] over
deemed necessary for a full
education.
1000 Norse
Following the Norman
derived words
in our language
invasion of 1066, the language
passed into a phase known as
Middle English, which was
an amalgamation of Old today’
English and Anglo- Norman
(a medieval French dialect).
This fusion took place over a
number of centuries, during
which time England was a
generally trilingual nation:
French was the language of the nobility, English the language
of the peasants, and Latin the language of the Church and
administration.
During this transitional phase between the 11th and 14th
centuries the English language was under serious threat,
having been replaced by French for most official and political
functions, with Henry IV (r. 1399-1413) being the first
King to have English as a first language since the Norman
invasion. English survived for a few reasons: primarily
the loss of Normandy in 1204, forcing the Norman nobles
to focus more on their English estates. In addition, the
Hundred Years War (1337-1453), branded the French very
distinctly as the enemy, whilst the growth of an English-
34
speaking merchant and labour class led to increased
use of the language. English did not progress unscathed
though- the Normans had a huge impact on the language,
bringing around 10,000 new words particularly relating to
government, law and culture.
For the majority of the Middle English period, there was a
general sense of equality between the various dialects at the
time; differences were clearly visible, but no one dialect was
seen as objectively ‘correct’ or ‘better’ than the others. Over
time however the growth of London’s financial and political
power, as well as the establishment of the colleges at Oxford
and Cambridge, allowed the South- East to rise to a position
of dominance. This enabled its dialect to become the ‘proper’
way of speaking, whilst
regional dialects began to be
looked down upon.
This dominance was
consolidated in the 15th
century as the language
evolved into Early Modern
English. The introduction
of the printing press in
England brought about a
widespread standardisation
process, allowing London
spelling – where the
majority of publishers were
situated- to become accepted
as correct.
English continued to develop into the 16th and 17th
centuries, during which time English began to look and
sound far more similar to how it does today - 10-12,000 new
words were coined between 1500 and 1650, half of which
are still in use. England underwent a cultural Renaissance,
leading to an influx of words with Greek and Latin origins
as Classical languages rose in popularity. Writers such as
Shakespeare had a profound impact on the language, the
famous playwright having personally introduced up to 2000
new words to the English language. Many phrases of his
invention are still commonly used: ‘minds’ eye’, ‘wild-goose
chase’ and ‘to break the ice’ being but a few.
In the 18th and 19th centuries the language was firmly
established, hence the majority of subsequent development
was in expansion of vocabulary, particularly during the
scientific and industrial revolutions. It was a simple case of
new words being needed for new things: machines, elements,
concepts and so on.
The British Empire- which at its height covered one-quarter
of the world’s land area, including India, Canada and
Australia- was of course essential in English’s current global
standing, spreading the language to every corner of the
globe. The process was however two-way: as English worked
its way into the language of the indigenous populations, local
words -for local species, traditions and other things simply
not existent in Britain- found their way back home.
English today remains the official or semi-official language
of many of these countries, resulting in its current role
as the first truly global language. Nowadays it is essential
internationally in business, finance and technology amongst
many other professions. Yet English’s development is still
ongoing, constantly changing and evolving to this day.
Language is key to a country’s identity. A greater
understanding of English’s diverse origins and development
can give us a wider view of its role in the ever- changing
cultural composition of today’s society.

35
 The
Story of a
Picture:
‘Englaland’s’
Finest
T
his picture was illustrated
in 1923 by Alfred Pearse- (1855-
1933), a British cartoonist and
illustrator- who would occasionally go by
the pseudonym “A Patriot”, as a result of
the patriotic theme of many of his works.
This particular illustration depicts King
Æthelstan of England- defeating the
combined forces of Olaf Guthfrithson,
King of Dublin, King Constantin II of
36
Scotland and King Owen of Strathclyde-
at the Battle of Brunanburgh- in 937.
The battle was fought 10 years after
Æthelstan had conquered York in 927,
the final Viking stronghold in Anglo-
Saxon England, officially making him
the first King of all “Englaland”.
Contextually, there was a surge in
patriotism after the Allied victory in the
First World War, so Pearse was perhaps
By Alexia
Claydon and
Dom Hogan
playing on this sentiment, when creating
this work. In Pearse’s illustration;
Æthelstan is pictured on horseback,
head and shoulders above the other
soldiers, giving him an innate position of
power. He is also holding his sword aloft,
gleaming with the blood of his enemies,
and rallying his warriors to him to make
one last charge into the ranks of his
enemies. By glorifying Æthelstan in such
a way, Pearse ensures that any observer’s
eye is drawn to the King, connoting the
might of England; this creates a symbol
which patriots could rally behind and
draw inspiration from. Equally, the
Allied invaders are shown to be weak
and, in some cases, are fleeing from the
The Battle of Brunanburh,
AD 937
might of the English charge. This is
another clear patriotic message from
Pearse – England was a dominant force
to be reckoned with.
Obviously, there had been Kings in
England before 924, when Æthelstan
came to the throne, but the country we
know today as England did not exist.
At the time of Æthelstan’s grandfather,
Alfred the Great, there were four main
kingdoms; Wessex in the south, East
Anglia (appropriately) in the East, Mercia
in the centre and Northumbria in the
north, with each being ruled by their
own royal family. Æthelstan’s family
were the royals of Wessex, the most
powerful and prosperous kingdom of
the four, and the one kingdom not to be
inhabited by Viking Raiders. This was
largely down to the work of Æthelstan’s
father, Edward the Elder, and his
aforementioned grandfather;- Alfred
being the first man to proclaim himself
King of the Anglo-Saxons, a title that
was passed down along with the crown
of Wessex. At the time of Æthelstan’s
ascension to the throne, Mercia and East
Anglia had been brought under the rule
of Wessex by his father Edward and only
Northumbria lay under the influence of
the Vikings.
Constantin- by marrying his daughter, A map of the four main
Three years before the Battle of
he set sail for Brunanburgh, near the kingdoms in Englaland. Each
Brunanburgh Æthelstan had launched an
border between modern day England and ruled by their own royal
invasion into Scotland. Having marched
Wales. family and government.
north virtually unchallenged, he forced
The alliance of Englaland’s enemies was
King Constantin II to submit to his rule,
routed and, according to William of
thus earning the English King the hatred
Malmesbury’s Anglo-Saxon Chronicle¸
of Scots and Vikings; the former due to
“never yet as many people before this
his conquering of their land; the latter
were killed by sword’s edge”: historians
due to his vast increase in power. This
estimate that of the 6,000 Vikings and
would prove to be the event that united
Scots, 4,500 were killed by Æthelstan’s
the enemies of England under the same
Englishmen. After the defeat of the
banner. King Olaf of Dublin had been
invaders, “the fields of Britain were
ejected from his throne in York in 927,
consolidated into one, there was peace
and was waiting for the chance to get
everywhere”-The King would make sure
his vengeance on the man who expelled
that the unity of his new country would
him. Seeking to gain the allegiance of
remain.

37
 Britain:
A Nation which launched
a movement to abolish
the slave trade
For more than 200 years, Britain was at the heart of a
lucrative transatlantic slave trading network. As a nation it
profited more than any other from the trade. But by 1783, the
British public had begun an anti-slavery movement to abolish
the slave trade throughout the Empire.
Granville Sharp, one of the leading abolitionists, brought
up the case of the escaped slave, James Somerset, before the
Lord Chief Justice in 1771. Somerset had escaped and been
recaptured in England by his American owner. Fortunately,
Somerset was set free, showing how Slavery on English soil
was unsupported by the law. However, slaves continued to
be sold in Britain and transported on British ships to the
Caribbean.
In the 1780s, the Quakers, under Granville Sharp, began
38
By Dunia Mangal
their public campaign against slavery. At this time, slavery
was still prevalent in Britain, with slaves openly sold in both
Liverpool and Bristol. The Quakers’ protests, along with
parliamentary support, led to the introduction of “The Act
for the Abolition of the Slave Trade” in 1807. Britain was the
first nation to introduce an act making the buying, selling
and transporting of slaves illegal. A year later, Parliament
passed this Act and by 1833, it had abolished slavery in
most of the British Empire. Not only this, but the British
Parliament passed a bill freeing all children under six in the
West Indies in August 1834.
Britain used this international strength and successful
abolitionist protest to put pressure on other nations to
end their own slave trade. They were keen to encourage
governments worldwide to see the monstrosity of slavery
and advocate other economic solutions. Britain provided an
example to other countries of how a former centre of the
slave trade could prosper without it. The United States acted
to abolish its Atlantic Slave trade the same month Britain
abolished it. The slave trade was later outlawed in the US
on January 1st 1808. Britain continued to put pressure on
other nations with a series of treaties from 1810 to 1820, such
as: The Anglo-Portuguese treaty in 1810 whereby Portugal
agreed to restrict trading slaves into its colonies, the 1813
Anglo-Swedish treaty which resulted in Sweden abolishing
its slavery network and the 1814 treaty of Paris in which
France agreed that they would abolish slavery in the next five
years. Within just ten years, the slave trade was abolished in
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and France. This later
led to the eradication of the whole transatlantic slave-trading
network and eventually, of all slavery during the 18th to 19th
century. However, even today, slavery still exists in parts of
the world, albeit mostly hidden.
Britain’s influence and example was instrumental in the
abolition of slavery in other European countries and in
the US. The British public’s campaign in the 1770s, and
parliamentary actions in Britain, persuaded other countries
that if they abandoned the slave trade they could still
benefit in other ways. The British government not only
banned slavery on British soil but also helped to ban slavery
throughout the world.

A copy of the Slavery

Abolition Act, put
into place on August
1st 1833.
An illustration from
the book: The Black
Man’s Lament.

39
 The victory of Henry V’s small, exhausted and starving army
against their vast French hosts was the greatest triumph of the
English longbow in the Hundred Years War between England and
France. But despite the arrow-storm, the battle came to hand-to-
hand combat, and was not the walkover for the English that it has
often been portrayed as.

Agincourt 1415
AGINCOURT: On 24 October came the news the English
had dreaded but also looked forward too: the French army
was drawn up in a flat plain between villages of Agincourt,
Tramecourt and Maisoncelle. Henry turned to his Welsh
retainer, Dafyd Gam, asking him to estimate the vast enemy
army horde and Gam replied coolly “Sire. There are enough
to kill, enough to capture and enough to run away.” In fact
the French outnumbered the English six-to-one with 36,000
troops in all. With their flanks protected by woodlands,
their backs by an open field and only a small shallow valley
separated them from the ‘puny’ English army. As night fell
Henry imposed strict silence as to confuse the French as to
what their plans may be. This eerie silence unnerved the
French who expected it was an English ruse to escape their
inevitable downfall the following morning. They set up a
picket line with fires at regular intervals along the road to
prevent such an escape. Henry did not sleep either and he
made preparations for the upcoming battle and sent out
scouts that returned with news that the ground resembled a
muddy sludge.
ST CRISPIN’S DAY: After a long, cold night of torrential
rain the fields the fields truly had become a muddy sludge
as the sun rose on St Crispin’s day- Friday 25 October 1415.
The English had spent the night in the open preparing for
the battle, whereas the French had slept in tents and gorged
themselves on wine and plentiful provisions. The French
were sure that victory would come easily for them. Hours
passed as each side waited for the other to make their first

40
move, however the French had every reason to wait, as with confused and grim hand-to-hand combat many of the English
every passing hour their strength would increase and that of lost their lives.For three gruesome and bloody hours the
the English would weaken. And it was this realization that slaughter carried on, with the French dead piling up in heaps
prompted Henry to make his first move. It was a calculated on the English front lines. The English were growing weary
gamble as he ordered his men to pull up their stakes, move with their deadly task. There was however a last minute
forward in full view of the enemy, and erect a new line flurry among the French when Duke Brabant arrived in the
of stakes closer to the French, hoping to goad them into afternoon. It came to nothing though as Brabant was kiled
attacking. This narrowed the front considerably – a change with all of his men. Alarmed by this and with the concern
which favored the English and tore up the French plan. The that French prisoners might take up arms if there was to be
French had initially considered a shower of arrows from a another attack; Henry broke all rules of chivalry and ordered
distance followed by the sending of their cavalry to attack the the death of all the French prisoners.
flanks of the English line. But now they were forced to make Aftermath: There was no French rally or second attack
a frontal assault – exactly what they had wanted to avoid. as feared, instead the remaining French soldiers fled the
The French realized that the ground sloped downwards to battle leaving thousands dead, wounded and captured to the
the English line and that the field tapered off into a funnel mercies of the English. The English had lost merely 112 men
shape the closer they got to the stakes. Furthermore it was compared to the 10,000 French, securing their miraculous
only now, quite belatedly that the French – who had in their victory against all expectations. A month later Henry
arrogance failed to send scouts – realized the ground was returned to England, his men were amply paid and England
dangerously muddy and soft. Yet they committed to a full celebrated St Crispin’s day. Meanwhile the battered French
on frontal assault to open the battle. The French begun with simply referred to Agincourt as “that unfortunate day” for
a cavalry charge that proved too weak – of 1200 knights on generations to come. The hundred years’ war continued for
horse and only a third of the men (420) actually attacked. another four decades.
Their noble colleagues on foot were quickly in trouble as
their heavy armor pulled them into the mud below. As they
floundered and sunk into the mud on their knees Sir Thomas
Erpingham (in command of the archers) gave the dreaded
command - “Now strike!” Strong arms nocked arrows, pulled
the bow strings to their maximum extent and sought the
greatest elevation before loosening the first volley of arrows.
Thousands of arrows whined through the air like a cloud
before hitting their targets or dropping into the muddy Agincourt
ground. Enough steel-tipped arrows struck home to break up memorial
the French advance. The French horses, injured by this volley
went wildly running through the French lines trampling the
dismounted knights in the mud. Yet the French continued
advancing in their thousands.
Hand-to-hand combat: This victory came mainly due
to the small number of English men at arms who halted and
bloodied the French advance that reached right up to their
lines. They were joined by squires, camp followers and an
increasing number of archers who had run out of arrows,
who, using any weapon at hand cut, thrust and gouged at the
faltering French. The French were now so close the English
archers could fire at them from point blank range. In this
By Leonidas Morales-Joannou

41
 Fact
File : Queen
Name:
Victoria
Queen Victoria
By Saumiya
Paheerathan

Date: June 1837 - 22nd January 1901

Importance: Queen Victoria redefined monarchy and leadership. Unlike many monarchs of the time, she
was able to change people’s views in favour of her, mainly with the growth and sustainment of
the British Empire. This was accompanied by her long and stable reign, which oversaw great
advancements in both technology and living standards. It was during Queen Victoria’s reign
that England began to change the world.
Other Important Figures: Prime Minister Lord Melbourne helped Queen Victoria be successful as a young monarch and
defended her against those he who felt she was unsuitable.
British Empire: By the end of Queen Victoria’s reign, the British Empire covered over one fifth of the earth’s
surface. Victoria was Empress of India as well as Queen of Britain. The early relationship
between Britain and India was based on trade. As the East India Company expanded, its
political control increased. The Company introduced many raw materials to the Uk, such
as tea, jute (a vegetable fibre) and rubber, essential to Britain’s development as an economic
powerhouse. The importance of cross-empire trade grew during the time of the British Raj
in Idea, and was vital to Britain’s rapid industrialisation. Trade with the Empire helped make
Britain rich. Many families emigrated to new homes in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa
and Canada and children were taught about the Empire at school.
Developments in Britain: The number of people living in Britain more than doubled, causing a huge demand for food,
clothes and housing. Factories and machines were built to meet this demand and new towns
grew up, changing the landscape and the way people lived and worked. Railways (originally
built to transport goods) meant people could travel easily around the country for the first
time.
Impact: By the end of her reign, Britain was the most powerful country in the world, with the largest
Empire that had ever existed, ruling a quarter of the world’s population. Victoria’s 63 years
revolutionised the world, creating a powerful legacy.

Portrait by Franz
Xaver Winterhalter
185

42
Boxing
Britain
By Ollie Charvet

Tracing its origins as far Aerial shot of Muhamad Ali after knocking out Cleveland Williams in
back as Ancient Egypt, 1966
the now popularised sport
of Boxing has survived
through a vast period of
changing culture, and
1681 between a butler and a a hefty sum, as well as a
even the collapse of some
butcher. Almost completely percentage of the stakes
of the world’s greatest
rule-less, this form of gambled by spectators;
empires. Following the
bare-knuckle boxing henceforth the sport became
fall of the Roman Empire,
ended when one man was known as ‘prize-fighting.’
the increased use of
incapacitated-essentially
weaponry resulted in
making the sport’s only rule Figg held the title for 15
the disappearance of fist
‘last man standing wins.’ years, during which time
fighting. It was not until
The first champion of this he obtained a resourceful
approximately 1200 years
brutal form was James Figg, and committed follower:
later when it re-emerged,
considered by many as the Jack Broughton. Broughton
gradually becoming a part of
father of modern boxing. sought to turn the poorly
modern culture in the form
Figg, like many others, regulated game into a real
of bare knuckle boxing,
sought fame and wealth athletic sport, and in 1743,
with London as its home.
through the sport, as the the first set of rules for
The earliest recorded bout
winner would take away boxing were introduced-
took place in Britain in

43
 ‘The Broughton Rules.’ The
incentive behind this was
the large number of deaths
caused by this new sport,
as Broughton searched
for a way to keep boxers
safe. Before the Broughton
Rules, fighters were allowed
below-the-belt punches,
and furthermore, once
down, a fighter would often
continue to be attacked
until unconscious or even
dead. Broughton’s rules
remedied this, introducing
three new aspects to the
sport. Firstly, if a man
went down and could not
continue after a count of
30 seconds, the fight was
forfeited, during which time
he could not be attacked.
The second rule disallowed
punches below the belt, and
the final rule introduced
what were then known as
‘mufflers,’ a form of padded
glove, however these were
encouraged rather than
made compulsory. To
Broughton, boxing was a
‘true British art,’ a view
shared amongst many
at the time. Pierre Jean-
Grosely, a contemporary
of Broughton’s, remarked
that boxing was a “special
form of combat” not “merely
congenial to the character of
44
the English” but “inherent
in the English Blood.”
It was around this time
when this ‘truly British
sport’ began to gain huge
momentum, particularly
growing in popularity
amongst the aristocracy,
with the 1780’s seeing the
first golden age of boxing.
British patriotism fuelled
by the war with France at
the time saw a huge surge
in boxing’s popularity, with
newspapers beginning
coverage of the sport. As
well as this numerous
schools and academies
opened across the country.
One of the largest appeals to
the sport at the time was its
embodiment of the ideas of
the enlightenment period,
as neither wealth nor class
was required to compete,
did not correlate with the James Figg, British
thus being seen as a great
gambling and violence Boxer
associated with boxing, and
leveler in which all classes
what had previously been
could compete on equal
seen as a ‘true British Sport’
footing.
became something unfit
for a gentleman. Boxing in
However the dawn of the
Britain seemed to be fading,
Victorian Age in Britain
its appeal lost amongst the
saw a collapse of the social
ideals of the time; but the
standing of boxing, labeled
British had not finished
a ‘low and de-moralizing’
adding their legacy to the
pursuit. A desire for
sport. In 1867, John Gram
morality and righteousness
from the Amateur Sports
attributed to this period
Club introduced the 1867
Queensberry Rules.
The Queensberry rules
essentially set up the layout
of what we now know as
Boxing, the most important
rule being the requirement
of the fighters to wear
gloves. Whilst the intention
of the introduction of
gloves was to protect the
fighter, it saw a completely
opposite effect. Bare-
knuckle boxers previously
had restrained the power
of their punches in order to
prevent permanent damage
to their hands, however
now that they had hand
protection, fighters began
to punch with far greater
strength. The number of
knockouts and battered
boxers greatly increased, as
well as a long-term effect,
which became known as
‘punchdrunk syndrome,’
which caused brain damage.
These rules saw boxing
relatively revitalized, as the
danger made the thrill of
the fight for the public ever
greater. This primed the
sport for commercialization
and widespread interest,
however it still remained
seen by the upper and
middle classes of society as
an undesirable sport.
A lack of matches at home
saw the emigration of lots
of boxers to the United
States in the 1830s. Almost
unheard of as an organised
sport, boxing was nearly
nonexistent in America
in the early 19th century,
and it wasn’t until the
introduction of the sport
by British immigrants to
the church that it began
to gain popularity. A form
of Christianity, known as
‘muscular Christianity,’
committing not only to
piety, but also physical
health, took up the sport,
opening its own gyms
and supporting fighters.
Bare-knuckle showdowns
between British and Irish
immigrants began to gain
momentum and soon
American ‘natives’ were
participating. However, one
man in particular, John L.
Sullivan, began gauging
public interest in the sport,
turning it from its amateur
status to a much more
professional one. Sullivan
was bare-knuckle champion
until the Queensberry rules
were introduced, at which
time he chose to take up
gloves, again becoming
champion. His popularity
saw a rise in respectability
for the sport, and whilst
the attraction of boxing in
Britain was in rapid decline,
it was on a greater rise in
the States.
The decades following
this saw increased news
coverage and massive
popularity for the sport,
peaking in what is known
as the ‘Golden age of sports’
in the 1920s. The 1926 fight
between Gene Tunney and
Jack Dempsey generating
the first $1 million gate in
entertainment history. Ever
since, the United States has
been the world centre for
boxing, producing prodigies
such as Muhhamad Ali,
Mike Tyson and Floyd
Mayweather (the top
earning sportsman in
history). Not only this, but
boxing has been the topic
of some of our times most
successful films, such as
Rocky and Warrior, both
topping the box office and
capturing the audience of The Iconic photo
millions across the globe. of Muhammad Ali
Whilst nowadays the knocking out Sonny
boxing industry is clearly Liston in 1965
dominated by America, this
never would have existed
without the hard work and
influence of the British in
the 18th and 19th century,
who provided the rules
and persona of a sport that
would go on to play a huge
role in world culture.
45
Clio
The Latymer History Magazine
The Latymer School
Edmonton
Haselbury Rd, London
N9 9TN