History revisited – the Cohen Commission: outmanoeuvred, the New England new state movement goes down

Premier Sir George Fuller may have been forced to accept Drummond’s resolution calling for a Royal Commission into the creation of new states but, fundamentally opposed to the idea of breaking up NSW, Fuller had no intention of making things easy for the new state protagonists,

The Northerners had wanted a Commission to lay down the boundaries for their state. Instead, the terms of reference announced in April 1924 required the new staters to pass three main tests: whether new states were practicable; if so, whether they were desirable; and whether the same ends could not be achieved another way.

These tests made the membership of the Commission vitally important, for unsympathetic appointees had three different if related grounds for rejection. The omens here were not encouraging.

Three of the five commissioners including Grafton born Justice Cohen (photo) as chair had deep connections with the Nationalist Party. Even more important was the appointment of W A Holman (photo) as counsel to assist the inquiry, supported by H S Nicholas. As Premier, Holman had clashed with the new staters while his political career had been effectively destroyed by those same Progressives who were now the chief protagonists of the new state cause.

The Northerners organised thoroughly for the task ahead. It was agreed that Thompson would organise the general evidence, while Page as Commonwealth Treasurer preparing the necessary financial data. Guidelines were prepared for witnesses, with local leagues provided on-ground support.

It was clear from the first hearings that the Movement was on trial as Holman used his considerable forensic skills to build the case against. The Commission became a duel between Thompson leading for the Movement and Holman.

Thompson believed that he was winning. This view was not shared by other members of the Northern leadership group. On 6 June 1924, an alarmed Alf Pollack wrote twice to Page stressing the need for expert cross-examination, arguing that Thompson could not provide it.

The hearings also provoked scattered opposition from local opponents of the self-government cause, opposition that was played up by the metropolitan media covering the Commission. But most important of all were debates over financial viability.

Page had argued that a Northern new state would have an annual surplus of 416,064 pounds. NSW Treasury representative Bertram Stevens argued that revenues would be25 per cent lower than Page’s projections, costs 40 per cent higher.

Recognising that this was potentially devastating. Page drew on the resources of his own Department. A Treasury official analysed Steven’s evidence, while the Department also collected comparative material on costs in other jurisdictions.

In the end, it was all in vain. The Commission accepted Holman’s arguments and the State Treasury estimates, ruling against the Movement on all counts. New states were neither desirable nor practical. Existing defects in the machinery of government should be remedied by a system of district councils with delegated powers.

Exhausted, the movements elsewhere in NSW collapsed, while even the stronger Northern Movement was reduced to a shadow of its former strength.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 3 September 2014, the next in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series

History revisited – Progressives force George Fuller to strike New England self government deal

It will already be clear that the story of the North’s fight for self-government is long and complex. The 1920s are important in that long story because it was then that the arguments and issues that would dominate future debate were defined.

It is sad but true that the only new issue in present discussions on the future of the Australian Federation is the degree of fiscal imbalance created by the Commonwealth’s overwhelming financial power. Every other issue, everyone one of the solutions put forward, every argument for or against each solution, was fully canvassed in the 1920s and then repeated seriatim over coming decades.

I mention this because we are now coming in our story to the creation of the Cohen Royal Commission into New States. This was seen, correctly, as a considerable achievement. However, it was also one that would bring the new state movement to its knees.

In March 1920, the Progressive Party had campaigned as a new broom. However, the new Party was actually an uneasy amalgam of very experienced Parliamentarians who saw political power as an end and the new and younger country members such as Bruxner or Drummond who saw political power as a means to an end, the achievement of their objectives and aspirations.

On 5 October 1920 Labor Premier John Storey died, being replaced by James Dooley. Storey’s death left the Assembly evenly balanced. Sensing an opportunity, Nationalist Liberal leader George Fuller persuaded some of the Progressives to join him to create a Nationalist-Progressive Coalition to overthrow the Government.

The move failed, but split the Progressive Party down the middle, with the younger country members led by Bruxner refusing to have anything to do with the deal. Initially their fate was uncertain, but their stand was finally backed by the Progressive Party organisation.

The elections of March 1922 saw the two wings of the Progressive Party pitted against each other. Following the elections, the Nationalist- Coalitionists became the largest party group, but did not have a majority. Fuller (photo) therefore formed a minority government. 

The True Blue Progressives were in a difficult position. Their party organisation and key backers including the Graziers’ Association would not allow them to support the Labor Party. Aware of this, Fuller did his best to ignore the presence of the True Blue Progressives.

The True Blues responded by making life miserable for the Government while campaigning on causes dear to their hearts, including new states. Matters came to a head in November 1923 when the Progressives combined with Labor, independent and dissident Coalitionists to defeat the Government during the Estimates debate.

Sir George Fuller had had enough. A deal was struck in which the Progressives agreed to provide general support to the Government in return for undertakings that included a Royal Commission into New States.

In December 1923, Drummond was able to move a successful motion in the Assembly calling for the creation of the Royal Commission. The Cohen Commission was born.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 27 August   2014, the next in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series

History revisited – Queensland joins fight for self government

By December 1920, the new state fire that Victor Thompson had lit in January 1920 may, as Earle Page said, have burnt well, but the new Movement still had to turn that heat into reality.

The events that followed over the next four years are complex, deeply entwined in local, state and Federal politics. I can only sketch some of the key features.

The embryo movement formed at the Glen Innes convention in August 1920 was transformed into a full scale movement that, by the end of 1921, had 200 leagues across the North.

Recognising the need for national support, the Northern leadership took the subdivision cause onto the road. They reached out into Queensland where support for separation was already strong in Central and Northern Queensland. Here they were joined by Labor politician and later Prime Minister Frank Forde (photo)  who, as member for Rockhampton in the State Parliament, had been actively promoting the subdivision of Queensland.

In Southern New South Wales, the Northern campaigners were successful in creating an active movement seeking statehood for the Riverina. Then, in July 1922, a national new state conference was held at Albury. Convened jointly by the Riverina and Northern Movements, the conference aimed to coordinate the activities of the various separation movements that had sprung up as a result of the Northerners’ campaign.

Attended by representatives including seven parliamentarians from twelve organisations covering NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, it formed an All Australian New States Movement with Earle Page as President, Victor Thompson as secretary.

Also in July 1922, Frank Forde successfully moved a motion in the Queensland Parliament calling for constitutional change to allow the formation of new states, while Drummond moved a motion in the NSW Parliament calling for immediate action to create a new state in Northern New South Wales.

This motion was opposed by the Labor opposition who argued that any subdivision should take place only in the context of an overall revision of the Federal Constitution that would strengthen Federal powers and replace the states with provinces.

The Government’s position was more complicated. The Premier conceded that new states were inevitable in the longer term, but also felt that it was simply unreasonable to expect members to agree to a motion that would mean loss of territory for NSW. An amendment was therefore moved and passed asking the Federal Government to convene a convention to consider the question, thus neatly shelving the issue.

The Federal elections of December 1922 saw the election of new staters P P Abbott to the Senate, Victor Thompson to the House of Representatives as member for New England. It also saw the emergence of the Country Party in a position of balance of power.

Page, now Country Party Leader, was determined to assert country interests. He demanded that the new Government be a joint one, a coalition of equals. The result was the formation of the Bruce-Page ministry.

The door now seemed open to real action to force self-government for New England. It wasn’t to be as easy as that.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 20 August   2014, the next in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series

History revisited – Thompson’s separatist fire burns well

Tamworth Observer editor Victor Thompson could not have foreseen the scale of impact of the Northern self-government campaign he launched through the paper in January 1920. Over 1920, the movement grew and grew.

Following the initial success of the Thompson campaign, a meeting of Northern newspapers held at Glen Innes in March 1920 agreed to form a New State Press League and Press Propaganda Executive with Thompson as secretary to direct an intensive propaganda campaign.

Over the next twelve months, the twenty-seven newspapers that had joined the League funded the Propaganda Executive to distribute news and editorial material to Northern newspapers. By August 1920, sixty newspapers from the Upper Hunter to the border were publishing League material.

The Thompson campaign coincided with campaigning for the NSW State election.

Earle Page had already been elected to the Federal Parliament in 1918 as member for Cowper representing the newly formed County Party. Now the March State election saw the election of a number of members for the newly formed Progressive Party including Mick Bruxner and David Drummond who had specifically campaigned on the new state cause.

In April 1920, the Tamworth Municipal Council circularised other councils in the North asking for an expression of opinion on the desirability of new states. Many reported enthusiastic support and followed Tamworth’s example by calling public meetings to launch new state leagues. By the end of May, fifty four councils were prepared to take action.

The Northern parliamentarians, particularly Page, Bruxner and Drummond helped the cause by speaking on tour and by assisting in the establishment of local leagues.

In late May, Drummond was the main speaker at a 5,000 strong Tamworth rally. The rally was preceded by a procession more than a mile long including 500 children clad in white. Denied a half holiday for the event, the children deserted school to march anyway.

In August, a Glen Innes conference appointed a provisional central executive for the newly forming Northern New State Movement pending a full convention to be held in Armidale. Following this, Progressive Party Parliamentarians Raymond Perdriau and David Drummond were appointed to organise the North Coast and Inland respectively.

December saw the publication of what would come to be called the new state bible, Australia Subdivided. Largely edited by Glen Innes Examiner editor Ernest Sommerlad with a foreword signed by seven parliamentarians, Australia Subdivided provided a detailed presentation of the new state case. It also bemoaned the absence of teachers’ colleges or universities in the North, a view that would be of considerable importance to Armidale’s future.

At year’s end, Page could fairly write to Thompson “Altogether, I think that you will be satisfied with the results of your labours this year. The fire you started has travelled far, and burnt well.”

The fire had indeed burnt well. However, now the new Movement faced major challenges in turning the dream into practical reality.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 13 August   2014, the next in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series

History revisited – January 1920. Tamworth Observer’s Victor Thompson re-launches fight for New England new state

Tamworth, Monday 5 January 1920. Victor Thompson as editor of the Tamworth Observer re-launches the campaign for self-government for the North with an editorial on country neglect. Over the next eleven issues he published a series of articles calling for the establishment of a new state in Northern NSW.

Born in Sydney in 1895, Thompson (first photo) had entered country journalism at eighteen and soon accepted country values and aspirations. Appointed to the Observer as senior reporter in 1911, he quickly became a campaigning editor. In doing so, he would transform the paper from a local paper to the Northern Daily Leader, the leading paper of the Tablelands and North West.

Thompson’s new campaign fell on fertile ground. While the separatist agitation of the 1880s had subsided, the idea of self-government for the North as a way of solving local problems had taken root.

At Grafton in 1915, public anger over the withdrawal of the steam ferry Helen from Clarence quickly turned into calls for a new state. The leader here was Dr Earle Page, then mayor of South Grafton.

Born at Grafton in 1880, Page was a clever mercurial man who would have a significant impact on Australian history. A shrewd business man committed to Northern development, Page was also a born agitator able to stir emotion and gather popular support.

Within a few months, the newly formed Northern New South Wales Separation League had grown to twenty two branches along the North Coast. Then it died down because of the war. However, during the agitation Thompson had promised Page that he would take up the cause as soon as the war had ended.

Page returned to Grafton in 1917 and resumed campaigning for separation and country development. In October 1918, a conference attended by coastal delegates from Kempsey to the Queensland border formed the North Coast Development League.

In April 1919, Page took his campaign inland, leading to the formation of a sister North-West Development League at Inverell.

One of the 300 people who packed the hot Inverell picture theatre to listen to Page pour out facts and figures over two and a half hours was a twenty nine year old share farmer named David Drummond. The younger Drummond absorbed the message. Page would become his life-long friend and mentor. The links that would shape Northern history in the first part of the twentieth century were forming.

While the new state cause was rising, a second political movement was emerging. Driven by concerns about country neglect, farmers had begun to discuss the formation of a new political party, leading to the formation of the Progressive, later Country Party.

The Northern people such as Drummond or Mick Bruxner who became involved with the new party were largely political clean skins. Lacking connections to the established political order, they identified with the new state cause. It became a natural part of their political platform.

Later, this close relationship between the New State Movement and Country Party would create difficulties for the New State Movement. In 1920, it contributed to the explosive success of Victor Thompson’s newspaper campaign.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 6 August   2014, the next in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series

History revisited – Lang vs Clark Irving: the battle for Northern self-government begins

Following the separation of Victoria in 1851, our sometimes irascible clergyman John Dunmore Lang turned his attention to the matter of Moreton Bay. In 1854 he was re-elected to the NSW Legislative Council, this time by the Moreton Bay District, to press the case for separation.

Lang’s vision did not yet include self-government for what we now call Northern NSW or New England. He wanted the bigger Northern NSW that stretched to Torres Strait to be broken into three colonies; separation for Morton Bay was a first step. He also wanted the boundary of Moreton Bay to be south of the present line.

As it became clear that this was not possible, Lang turned his attention to a new project, the creation of a new colony in Northern NSW. The battle that now raged was fought out in the Northern Rivers. There Lang was pitted against Clark Irving, merchant, ship owner, pastoralist and politician.

Irving had been elected in 1856 to represent the Clarence and Darling Downs in the first Legislative Assembly formed after the grant of responsible government to NSW. In 1857 he lost his seat in the face of local dislike of leadership from Sydney, as well as justified doubts about Irving’s support for the Moreton Bay separatist cause.

Now overtly anti separatist, Irving used his not inconsiderable political skills and financial resources to fight back, gaining re-election in 1859, the year of Queensland separation, as member for Clarence.

Irving controlled the local newspaper. Lang and his supporters therefore decided to establish a rival paper. In 1859 financial backing was found to bring William Vincent to Grafton to establish the Clarence & Richmond Examiner, now the Grafton Daily Examiner. This marks the start of the Vincent newspaper family that was to play such an important role in the history of the New England press and in the promotion of Northern causes.

Irving won. The agitation died down, resurfacing at Glen Innes in 1875 and then again in a stronger way in 1887-1888. This agitation is important because it saw the emergence of concepts and arguments that are still important today.

From the start of the 1880s, all the capital cities began gaining population at the expense of the rest of their colonies. The problem was most pronounced in Victoria, leading to the formation of decentralisation leagues to campaign for balanced development.

The decentralisation movement spread. In Newcastle, some speakers at an 1888 protest meeting, called over the railway plans of the Sydney government, advocated separation. The move was rejected, but the newly formed North and North-western Decentralisation League subsequently proposed that the Colony should be divided into ten provincial districts (regional councils), each entitled to a share of the national revenue.

The Newcastle discussion over separation reflected the resurgence of separatist support further north. Beginning in 1887, a campaign for separation spread along a line from Grafton through Glen Innes to Inverell. For the first time there was a clear expression of Northern identity, a creation of the period since Queensland separation.

Agitation died. However, a base had been laid for the bigger campaigns of the twentieth century.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 30 July 2014, the second in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series.

History revisited – Pioneer of region’s secession and independence movement

The entry on John Dunmore Lang in the Australian Dictionary of Biography describes him variously as Presbyterian clergyman, politician, educationist, immigration organiser, historian, anthropologist, journalist, goal-bird and, in his wife’s words engraved on his statue in Sydney, “Patriot and Statesman.”

Lang was born in Scotland in 1799, the son of small landowner William Lang and his wife Mary Dunmore. Lang’s mother seems to have had a considerable influence on him. In the words of one of Lang’s biographers, she had formidable powers of moral indignation and such capacity for vituperation that in comparison her son’s most savage strictures seemed but a mild remonstrance!

After qualifying for the ministry, Lang arrived in Sydney in May 1823 as the first Presbyterian minister. There he threw himself into the turbulent religious, political and educational life of the still young colony.

In early 1840, Lang sailed for the US: In travels through eleven states he was deeply impressed by the great merit of republican government based on the independent sovereignty of each state and a large measure of local autonomy. He returned with a new vision for Australia expressed in two books, The Coming Event; or, the United Provinces of Australia (Sydney, 1850) and Freedom and Independence for the Golden Lands of Australia (London, 1852).

This was a time of considerable constitutional change. As part of that change, the original colony of NSW was progressively subdivided with the creation of Van Dieman’s Land (1825), Western Australia (1832), South Australia (1836) and New Zealand (1841).

In June 1843, Lang was elected to represent the Port Phillip District in the NSW Legislative Council in Sydney. There were deep concerns at Port Phillip about remote government from Sydney, about the misuse of revenue raised in Port Phillip on expenditure outside Port Phillip. Further, the District had only six representatives in the Council, too few to make a real impact.

Driven by his vision of a federated Australia with multiple states, Lang threw himself into the self-government cause. This was achieved in 1851 with the creation of Victoria following the passage of the Australian Colonies Act. Lang now turned his attention to Moreton Bay.

The suggestion that a new colony might be formed north of the Manning River if parent colony NSW became too large and unwieldy had first been made by the British Secretary of State in Governor Gipps’ time (1838-1846). A clause in the Constitution Act therefore enabled her Majesty on the petition of inhabitant householders north of the 30th parallel of south latitude to detach such territories from New South Wales and to erect them into a separate colony or colonies. This boundary included the Clarence River, but subdivided the Northern Tablelands, leaving Armidale in NSW.

The stage was now set for a battle that would help set the direction and form the character of the twentieth century campaign for self-government for New England.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 16 July 2014, the second in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

If you want to follow the story of the Northern or New England self-government movement, this is the entry post for the whole series.

History revisited – new state movement 163 years young and still kicking

In January 1851 a meeting in Brisbane supported by squatters from the Northern Tablelands, the Clarence and Darling Downs formed the Northern Districts Separation Association. Their aim was the creation of a new colony by the subdivision of NSW.

One hundred and sixty three years later, agitation for self government for the North continues. Last Monday, the ABC’s Kelly Fuller featured the New England New State Movement. As I write, the New England New State Facebook group page has 306 members. The Movement is presently much diminished from its peak to be sure, but at one hundred and sixty three years it is the oldest surviving political movement in Australia.
History is written by the winners, controlled by the gatekeepers who determine what will be researched and published, what is newsworthy. Since the 1967 plebiscite defeat, the fight for New England self-government has diminished to just a footnote in the history books. As it has done so, the recognition of the North, the broader New England, has diminished too.

Today, we count less than Tasmania or the ACT or the Northern Territory; less than Western Sydney, the Sunshine Coast, the Pilbara or the Kimberley. You see, we don’t exist. We are just not there.
Over the next six or so columns, I plan to tell you a little about the history of the continuing fight for New England self-government from the 1850s to the present time.

It’s not a story that you will find in the conventional history books. To those writers, our story is neither important nor relevant. However, it is to us. More, it’s important in a general sense as an integral thread in Australian history.

Over its history, the Northern later New England New State Movement forced the creation of one Federal and two state royal commissions into constitutional issues. It played a major role in the establishment of the most significant Commonwealth Parliamentary inquiry into the constitution. It led to pamphlets, book, articles, summer schools and conferences on constitutional issues.

The Movement had to do this because constitutional rigidities were, and remain, the biggest problem New England faced in gaining self government. In doing so, the Movement articulated all the main issues that have to be addressed by Mr Abbott’s White Paper on reform of the Federation.

Along the way, the Movement delivered quite tangible benefits to the North, going some way towards overcoming the parochial local and regional divides that have always bedevilled attempts at cooperative action.

Next week, I will begin the story by looking at the colonial origins of the Movement and especially that stormy petrel, the Presbyterian clergyman John Dunmore Lang who made such a mark on Australian history.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 9 July 2014, the first in a series telling the story of the Northern or New England self-government moment. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because they are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.
Other posts in this series are:

• History revisited – Pioneer of region’s secession and independence movement

• History revisited – Lang vs Clark Irving: the battle for Northern self-government begins 

• History revisited – January 1920. Tamworth Observer’s Victor Thompson re-launches fight for New England new state 

• History revisited – Thompson’s separatist fire burns well 

•  History revisited – Queensland joins fight for self government 

• History revisited – Progressives force George Fuller to strike New England self government deal 

• History revisited – the Cohen Commission: outmanoeuvred, the New England new state movement goes down   

• History revisited – the Cohen Commission’s silver lining 

• History revisited – threads in New England’s history 

• History revisited – Armidale’s many connections

• History revisited – North’s fight rages on 

•  History revisited – battling for self-government in the North 

• History revisited – great depression brings divides on left and right

• History revisited – as society fragments, movements begin to form 

•  History revisited - Page loses key lieutenant 

• History revisited - other regions join the fight for separation 

• History revisited - NSW to be torn apart by five state solution 

• History revisited - Lyons splits the ALP: deal seems to place New England self-government within reach 

• History revisited - the Premier greenlight's self-government referendum; the movement squibs

History revisited – the women’s revolution

One of Australia’s best known paintings is Frederick McCubbin’s On the Wallaby Track (1896). It’s a bush scene. The man lights a fire to boil the billy. His young wife leans back against a tree, eyes shut, exhausted. A strapping baby rests upon her lap.

That painting is in the NSW Art Gallery. I always focus on the woman. Each time, I wonder how she coped on the track with a long and apparently heavy dress like that, with shoes or boots that appear quite uncomfortable.

In my last column, I suggested that being a wife and mother in the nineteenth century was hard and sometimes dangerous work, especially for the ordinary woman without access to domestic help to do the really hard work.

Consider an example. Older Armidale residents will remember laundries often to be found in a separate room at the back of the house with their coppers. Fires had to be lit, the water in the copper heated, the clothes washed in the hot water stirred with an old broomstick. Then the water was squeezed out using a mangle and clothes hung on long lines stretched across the back yard.

This was, in fact, relative luxury. Fifty years earlier, clothes were often boiled in a kerosene tin set on bars across an open fire. In both cases, the time and effort involved was substantial.

Once clean, those clothes requiring ironing were ironed with heavy metal irons heated on the stove. There were different types of irons depending on the clothes, but in all cases the irons cooled quite quickly and had to be reheated. Is it any wonder that washing day was an ordeal?

If you look at the time and effort involved in all this, you might see why I rank labour saving devices as the first and most important advance supporting the changing role of women. Many women did do paid work while married, but the time to do so was just so limited.

I rank improvements in health care as the second most important factor in supporting the changing role of women. It meant that fewer women died in child birth, something obviously important from a personal and family perspective. But it also meant that fewer children died.

Infant death was one key reason for the big families of the past. It meant that you needed more children to ensure family survival. You could not choose to have a particular family size, to stop having children to achieve that, because infant and child mortality made such a choice impossible.

I doubt that the women’s revolution could have happened without these two things, labour saving devices plus improvements in health care. Labour saving devices gave women extra time while still maintaining family responsibilities. Improvements in health care meant that women had to spend less time in child rearing. The combination led to a social revolution.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 2 July 2014. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because the columns are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.

History revisited – bobbed hair & the start of a revolution

When I first studied history at school, it was all about war, politics, kings and battles. There was very little about domestic life or, indeed, life in general. Now, fortunately, the historical canvas is painted in much broader terms.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually like war, politics, kings and battles and even economics! However, the details of life are not just interesting, but set a basic context that helps explain other things.

Take, as an example, the rise of the women’s bobbed hair cut.

Traditionally, women wore their hair long. “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair” really only makes sense if you know that women wore their hair long. The modern miss would have to say “I’m sorry, I can’t, but here’s a rope.” Practical, but not quite as romantic!

To my mind, bobbed hair is a symbol of the changes that have taken place in women’s life over the twentieth century. Shorter hair became necessary during the First World War when women started working in factories. It was practical. When, to the shock of the traditionalists, it became a fashion statement during the 1920s, it was again in part because it was practical.

The long and complex clothing worn by women in the last part of the 19^th century may have been fashionable and attractive, but it could be an absolute pain. Quite literally, in fact. The high necked dresses with their multiple buttons stretching up to the back of the neck caught hair that had to be painfully and carefully untangled.

I had enough problems with my daughters getting knots out as I brushed their hair. I hate to think how I would have gone with a wife or partner with hair caught in her high-necked dress.

Today, we think of women’s liberation in political or gender relation terms. That’s true, but it’s also very misleading.

In the nineteenth century, being a wife and mother was hard and sometimes dangerous work.

It was hard because of the absence of any form of labour saving device. With the man of the house often absent for extended period, women had to undertake hard physical labour including sawing wood so that it could be chopped. Hard labour continued even when the man was home in washing, cooking and cleaning.

It was dangerous, too. It wasn’t just the dangers of childbirth at a time when so many women had very large numbers of children with limited medical knowledge or support. Open fires, fuel stoves, moving heavy pots or kerosene lamps all provided their own dangers and challenges. Severe burns were common.

Is it any wonder that women formed powerful support networks, that men were judged first and foremost by a single rule, is he a good provider? In my next column, I will look at some of the basic changes that have taken place in women’s life over the last century and a half.

Note to readers: This post appeared as a column in the Armidale Express Extra on 25 June 2014. I am repeating the columns here with a lag because the columns are not on line outside subscription. You can see all the Belshaw World and History Revisited columns by clicking here for 2009, here for 2010, here for 2011, here for 2012, here for 2013, here for 2014.