History Coursework

            The Second World War was considered to be a malevolent, unjustified and painful encounter which brought death and adversity to the entire world during the years 1939-1945. Overseas from British territory it emerged that a gruelling and bloody war was ensuing across Europe and inevitably the world, but as this hostility and epic war reached extreme measures, the contribution on the British home front, the brave and courageous individuals of the populace and the soldiers left behind were left to endure the ever-changing times. Though the real war was being fought across Europe, the Home Front proved to defeat other issues and problems that surfaced during the progression of World War Two.

            As the war developed, Britain transformed and adapted to life under threat. With the risk of daily air raids, cities such as the capital, London, took drastic measures to avoid the prospect of bombing and land invasion from the Germans. The “Blitz” was one of the most malicious bombing raids ever to strike the heart of England, with thousands killed and millions suffering the consequences, it was not only the urban inner city areas that experiences the effects of the war upon them. The English countryside, beautiful scenery and historic towns all were forced to adapt to the threat posed by the war. As the danger became more widespread across the country, many national problems were experienced and undertook in Rushden and Higham Ferrers to ensure safety. The local area was influenced to feature in the country-spread Blackouts, torturing rationing and shortages of general and essential items, the black market and recruitment. The local area dramatically encountered a freak bombing raid which saw several bombs hit throughout Rushden. Other factors that affected the local area of Higham Ferrers and Rushden was evacuation, rationing, the changing of factories, the presence of foreign soldiers and prisons of war, fundraising activates and other extreme alterations to ordinary life.

            Evacuation commenced during the accumulation to the British’s declaration of war in 1939, in the hope of reducing and minimising the amount of human casualties in key cities and large or historical towns. Areas such as the capital, London, saw around 600,000 people evacuated in just three days, were as another 900,000 were evacuated from other locations in the same time period. With the 1.5 million evacuations in just three days, many schools were abandoned as the main evacuees consisted of schoolchildren and teachers, with pregnant woman, children under 5 and there mothers, and various disabled people also moving via train or road transport. The target location of evacuation was countryside areas and small villages in remote areas, far away from cities with major threats, to reduce the chance of being killed or injured in an air raid. A government notice was sent to all parents and schools informing them about the evacuation project:

Government Evacuation Scheme.

The government have ordered evacuation of school children. If your children are registered for evacuation, send them to their assembly point at once.

If your children are not registered and you wish them to be evacuated, the teachers or school keeper will help you.

If you do not wish your children to be evacuated you must not send them to school until further notice.

Posters notifying the arrival of parties in the country will be displayed at the schools at which the children assembled for evacuation.

E.M. Rich. Education Officer L.C.C.

Taken from a Government Letter Sent to a Home in London 1939, posted at www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo

Most evacuees were schoolchildren, who had been labelled like pieces of luggage, separated from their parents and accompanied instead by a small army of guardians - 100,000 teachers. By any measure it was an astonishing event, a logistical nightmare of co-ordination and control beginning with the terse order to 'Evacuate forthwith,' issued at 11.07am on Thursday, 31 August 1939. Few realised that within a week, a quarter of the population of Britain would have a new address.

The effect this generated for children was severely traumatic. Talking to evacuees nowadays about the events of those days in 1939 recalls painful memories that have been deeply hidden for 60 years, exposing the trauma of separation and isolation and the tensions of fear and anger. Most were unaware of where they were going, what they would be doing and all were wholly ignorant of when they would be coming back.

However, the consequence of evacuation not only brought suffering to the evacuees, but also to areas such as Rushden and Higham Ferrers, where the arrival of evacuees relentlessly affected the dynamics to an ordinary life. Individuals around the area who had a spare room were obligated to take in evacuees, many of which were shipped in via Rushden Train Station, no longer active in the present day, from the Northern areas of London. This drastically affected fosters of the evacuees, who commonly had no experience or understanding of child-care and the emotions the evacuees were suffering.

With one spare room and little space in her house, Mrs L.Wilkins was forced to care for three evacuees. Whilst her husband and two sons were away from home in service of the British army, she was left to mind three “unorganised and exasperating children.” She remembered:

“When I became aware of the situation, with the presence of evacuees now being transported to my local area, I became nervous and very reluctant to being a carer, and when the three children, Jessica, William and Charlie, all from the same family in “London Somewhere” (As they put it) I was very shocked to find them in the state they had arrived in. Charlie, who was 8 years old, had a hole in his T-Shirt and mud all over his shorts and shoes, whilst it appeared he had an infestation of lice in his hair. The two twins, William and Jessica were extremely devious and they were a handful throughout their entire stay. Their clothes were also muddy and dirty, with the infestation of lice also plaguing their hair.

Every night for the next, probably 3 or 4 weeks, the children would cry themselves to sleep at night and wake up with a wet bed, which became very irritating, but I was patient and understanding as it seemed their situation was much worse than mine.”

Mrs L.Wilkins lived in the outer area of Rushden, were she found her self, along with others throughout Higham Ferrers and Rushden, in a difficult and demanding circumstance.

            The experience was typical for the many foster parents, (who have written extracts into diaries and letters,) of evacuees in the Higham and Rushden area, with many suffering the shock of isolation and the separation from their homes and parents. Looking after these children could have proved very difficult and as the evacuees appeared to find it extremely strenuous adapting to life in the countryside, the task was in many cases a problem.

            “All three children were extremely nice and polite after a couple of months, and they began to enjoy their time in Rushden. With a different routine to their lives in the city, consisting of small changes which I overlooked the majority of the time, hoping they would get used to it, such as drinking the milk of a cow, not that from a bottle, and walking to school in their wellys.”

            Originally, however, the evacuees were suffering from the separation from their mothers, and possibly fathers, and their friends, which caused many of them a frightful and upsetting experience. The local child of Rushden and Higham were subsequently reported in various accounts to outcast evacuees and make them feel unwanted and ostracised which perhaps led to long-lasting damage.

            Mrs K.Hamling, who was evacuated from the Southern area of London in 1939, to a village called Yardley Hastings, recalled:

            “I was 14 years old when my mother decided that my brother and I should be evacuated. She told us both, “Have fun, be good and I will see you as soon as I can,” which filled us both with hope and excitement before boarding the train. At this point we were unaware of our destination and we encountered a nightmare journey in which we were transported by train to a station a few minutes away, then transported via bus to another station, were we stopped and were taken into a village, by bus once again. The excitement of the prospect was now simmering into nothingness as we were marched up and down the streets of this small, yet very beautiful, village, where we were finally taken by a large woman, into her home. We cried for days and were never once made to feel welcome in our reluctant foster parent’s home.”

            It emerged that the security of their everyday lives was taken from the children and they began to feel apprehensive about there new environments.

            The Higham Ferrers and Rushden area had a typical countryside experience of evacuation, with evacuees being transported to the towns and civilians being forced into the job of foster parenting. This was a different case to the circumstances of major cities and towns were evacuees were being taken away, not being brought here for the safety advantages.

            I interviewed a man of 74 years of age who has lived in Higham for almost thirty years who, during the war at the age of 9, was evacuated from Birmingham to a remote area in Yorkshire, in which he never even knew the name of the village. He reminisced that his sister, who was two years older than he was, along with himself, were separated from their mother in August 1939. They were very excited and could not contain there happiness of the prospect of living in a beautiful village in the glamorous countryside. His sister had told him that everything would be OK and the experience would be amazing. However, it became instantly acknowledgeable that the local children did not want them in their village. They were bullied and teased for many months whilst living in a home with an unenthusiastic foster parent. He recalled that when they arrived at the home of their fosterer, they were forced to sleep on the floor with a blanket and one pillow, whilst her sons’ bedroom, which held two beds, was kept empty upstairs. She told them that they were not allowed to sleep in there as they were her children’s’ beds and despite them being at war, that they would be back soon. The isolation and rejection was bitter and he stated, “I cried whilst holding my sisters hand every night, because I felt unwanted and an outcast.”

            “Whenever the local villagers were in the presence of the evacuees,” he informed me, “the mood became sour and tense, with laughter and finger pointing in our direction. One man who had owned a post office in the area, was walking to work one morning and shouted “Get out of our town!” in my sister’s direction. She began to cry and ran to our accommodation. However, she was then thrown out of the house by our foster parent who was inside with a soldier from a local air base.”

            When I queried about whether he reuniting with his mother after the war, all he had to say was,

            “Me and my sister held each other tightly and prayed that our mother would appear in the room of evacuees being reunited with there parents, when suddenly she appeared through the crowd. Life, however, had changed significantly during our time away.”

            This presents the feelings and effects felt during and after the war as being dramatically different to beforehand, which in my opinion was a change for the worse, as the destruction of the war was horrific to civilians in Britain.

            Evacuation was not generalised as one typical evacuation experience as many factors affected how people were subjected to the process. The experience was dependant on who you were evacuated with, who you were left to be fostered by, what environment you lived in, how much of a change you had to undergo and the local people’s reaction to your acquaintance. With many evacuees dealing and withstanding the evacuation, it was more common that schoolchildren suffered from emotional stress and the trauma of isolation and rejection from local children and citizens. Being separated from your mother and then placed in a strange and awkward location produced the difficulties of evacuees being forced to adapt to a new lifestyle in the countryside.

            It was generally found that the experience of evacuees in Rushden and Higham Ferrers was similar to that of the experience of other villages and towns around the country, but in larger cities and larger towns the experience of evacuation was a suffering of a different nature as people were forced to choose between risking their child’s lives or evacuating them to a remote location miles from home. The two experiences varied immensely from one another; however, they both involved the adversity of the traumatic experience forced to withstand the painful separations and adaption to a changed life.

            Prior to the war, importations supplied much of the fuel, clothing and food to Britain, but as the progression of war developed throughout Europe, these disruptions prevented the supplies from arriving. With many essential items being shipped in from across the world to our country, the disruption caused a shortage of supplies, with the main concern being food. In 1940, rationing was introduced in Britain and everyone was issued with a ration book that contained coupons to be handed to shopkeepers in return for rationed food. Every month, along with basic rationing, everybody was issued with 16 coupons with which they could spend freely on whatever they desired. This guaranteed an equal share to all British civilians, rich or poor, which enabled them to receive the basic food necessary to maintain a healthy diet and prevent people becoming unfit or sick.

            The three items to be among the first few things rationed were bacon, butter and bacon, with families including children given regular vegetables, vitamins and fruit supplies. The effect upon many people was varied considering rationing, with many considerably poorer individuals improving their diets through the course of the project. When asking my interviewee of 74 years of age, referring to the effects of rationing on himself, he stated that due to his deprived and underprivileged upbringing he found that rationing gave him a more well rounded diet of oranges, bananas and spam which were imported from America. He was also given spoonfuls of cod liver oil by his teacher which was a delightful treat that he had never been gifted with beforehand.

            In October 1939 a campaign known as “Dig for Victory,” was issued which became one of the most famous operations during the war. The Government used this campaign to encourage people to grow their own food at home, on parks and grassy areas, with one famous area being the gardens outside Downing Street converted to a vegetable patch. This encouraged people to use spare pieces of land, their gardens and anywhere they could find to grow vegetables for themselves, giving them a limitless supply. With the war approaching and times becoming desperate, June 1939 saw the foundation of the Woman’s Land Army, an organisation of woman who worked on the farms, as more locally grown food was required and most men had gone to war. This effort was very successful with 80,000 women joining and keeping the farms running throughout rationing.

            A shortage of clothes also brought about the rationing scheme of clothing, introduced in May 1941, with the Government issuing the scheme of “Make do and Mend” which encouraged people to get as much wear from their clothes as possible, in the hope to reduce the demand of new clothing. This campaign affected people in different manners.

            Jimmy Smith, my 74 year old interviewee recalled,

            “The rationing of clothing was extremely overlooked in my situation. I was evacuated with only a few clothes and my foster parent was not planning on buying me any new ones even if mine were ripped to shreds. So, me and my sister made use of the clothes we had and from the time we were relocated to the village, to the time we went home, our clothes barely changed at all,” he explained, “but with our upbringing being slightly deprived anyway, our general upbringing revolved around the idea of the “Make do and Mend” scheme already.”

            The rationing of new clothes seemed to affect the poorer individual less than that of a wealthy one. Prior to rationing, it was common for wealthy individuals to be into fashion and keeping with the trends. But with the rationing this prevented their usual manners and forced them to keep their clothes for a longer period of time.

            Many people tried to avoid rationing by buying extra clothes and food on the “black market” from profiteers known as “Spivs.” The coupons issued in rationing books were also forged, stolen and sold on the “black market” for a higher price, to enable the purchase of more than a person’s normal quota. Although, the “black market” was only really available for wealthier persons, as “Spivs” required heavy pay.

A weekly allowance was set for each person.  This changed throughout the war but here are some examples of the amounts that were allowed -

A typical ration book:- 

            The effects of rationing were also felt by the people of Rushden and Higham Ferrers, as well as the rest of the country. Despite this, the affect was not as bad considering the freshness of the products was virtually brand new, since the meat and milk were produced in the countryside, meaning city rationing would involve less fresh produce.

            One man in Rushden was remembered by Frank L. King to say, “Rationing is nothing to countryside’s folk, pigs are killed her all the time and delivered to our shops direct, very fresh. And you can also eat any part of a pig apart from its squeal!”

            No food was wasted and local produce was provided to create a better and healthier meal for those living in the cities. Help was needed on the farms as many men were off providing their service to the war effort and in October 1945 “More than One Hundred boys and girls from Rushden helped local farmers with the potato harvest.” This is significant evidence of national pride and the portrayal of high moral within the home front, supporting the soldiers fighting for their country.

            The Home Front was encouraged and praised by the Government for its efforts on rationing of food and clothes, and the community help that was conveyed by the aid given to farmers in Rushden during the potato harvest, reinforces the idea of high spirits and strong moral throughout Britain.

            With the aid of individuals becoming an ever growing situation, the Government decided to encourage the country to become a more self sufficient society, with everyone helping each other and producing benefits for the war effort. With the conversion of factories from their usual routine and production, to making munitions and other goods for the war endeavour. As men were called up into the armed Forces, 1939 saw a massive increase in female employment in factories throughout the country. Despite being paid around half the wage of a man’s payment, woman did everything asked and required of them during their time in factories. Women worked on the buses, on the land, in factories and in the forces, were they carried out non-combatant roles such as clerical work and driving.

            Initially young, single woman were employed in factories and other lines of work, but by 1941 the Government had to face facts that any effective response would have to involve the wholesale conscription of women. About 7 million women were employed during the war.

            Northamptonshire, the county in which Rushden and Higham Ferrers are located, has always been renowned for its shoe making industry. This meant that during the war, production of shoes was halted and factories throughout Northamptonshire, especially in Rushden and Higham were converted into factories that produced army boots, belts and munitions. 8,000,000 army boots were produced at John White Ltd of Rushden, which was the main retailer of army boots during the war. The factory which produced these army boots consisted of staff mainly to the capacity of females. This experience was, too, typical all over the country at this time.

            Jimmy Smith told me of how his mother had worked in a factory back home in Birmingham whilst he had been evacuated. She had informed him that she worked alongside many of her friends and locals to the area in a factory almost full of females.

            It was commonly known that jobs in factories full of females were flamboyant and vibrant, with singing and enjoyment throughout the day.

            February 1942 saw the forced registration of all women between the ages 18-60 into the Ministry for Labour, in which each one was interviewed and given a specific job for their capabilities. This registration was for all women of 18-60 and was not dependent on their marital status, single or married, or whether or not they had children.

             Air raids were one of the most feared threats of the war period to civilian stability throughout the entire country. It was also aware that major cities such as London and Birmingham were to be in a more direct threat than other areas, such as Higham or Rushden, as the destruction of major cities would ultimately kill thousands and shatter the moral of civilians.

            During the various air raids to cause destruction across Britain, 60,595 people were killed as a result of the enemy fighter and bomber plains on our own territory. London fell victim to an almighty air raid which saw thousands killed when the “Blitz” stuck along the River Thames Docklands area. This was on just one of the many raids which led to death, injury and disruption across Britain. Work places, public buildings and homes were destroyed as not only death and disruption was caused, but the everlasting damage to British moral suffered a huge blow, as well as thousands becoming homeless and possibly in bereavement.

            Volunteers were trained for civil defence units for such jobs a fire fighting, first aid and ambulance drivers, along with various people being given quick lessons on how to fly a fighter plane, for the ever demanding task of fending of German air threat. Civilians received leaflets and letters explaining how to protect themselves in case of attack against poison gas attacks, with the aid of gas masks which were handed out at schools and shops. The gas masks were to be carried on all journeys and outings as the threat of chemical warfare was rumoured around Europe. Blackouts were essential at night times to help camouflage cities and towns at night from air raids and enemy detection, with individuals given materials to build their own air raid shelters in their gardens in case the air raid siren would alert.

             People living in Rushden and Higham were given Anderson Shelters to construct in their backyards, which were cold, damp and dingy, with the need of high spirits whilst inside, as children became easily scared by the experience. Jim recalled:

            “When I was evacuated, the area was beautiful and scenic; however, unsightly air raid shelters had been constructed in gardens and I was very scared when the siren went off and we were told to sit in the air raid shelter in the dark, despite it only being a drill!”

            One local Rushden civilian recalled:

            “Mother made this as homely as possible and even put up a curtain over the tin bucket in the corner… and when nature made it essential that this was used everyone sang very loudly.”

            Despite Rushden being an evacuation location, were evacuees came to be safe and the size of the town, it was still hit in World War 2 by several bombs. One lady, who lived in Rushden during this event remembered:

            “I believe that Rushden was struck by several bombs during the war, in a freak incident. It was in 1940 or 1941 I believe and several lives were lost. Rumours were spread that the attack was not deliberate and a German Bomber jettisoned his bombs after missing his original target, so he could get back home. He must have seen a light and thought there must be life down there… that will do… It was a horribly traumatic experience. He hit the Victoria Hotel, demolished the fish shop of Bates, and a row of house in West Street. He then struck Caves, a factory in College Street I believe, and several people were killed. But the worst hit was directly upon Alfred Street School, which killed and injured some of the children. The bomb hit in the toilets, or so we were told.” This raid took place on Thursday 3^rd October 1940. 18 Incendiary bombs were released and 7 children from Alfred Street were killed, along with 4 men form Caves Factory who also died in the attack. Several houses were also destroyed along Newton Road, and Roberts Street.

            This incident was rumoured to be a German Bomber who had missed his original target, returning back to France and releasing his excess bombs so his plane was lighter for the journey home. Cities were hit hard by constant air raids, but countryside bombings were very rare and less frequent. Attacks in rural areas were usually due to German aircraft releasing their bombs prior to the journey to France, (were they attacked from regularly,) to reduce weight and petrol consumption.

            Although, it was not uncommon that rural areas were hit to damage munitions and army equipment factories, and to target military bases and military units in the countryside area. Even though the attacks on rural areas were of a smaller scale than that of urban areas, the damage and destruction was no less horrific and disgusting. London and other major cities were forced to evacuate many children and other persons as well, which reflected the enormity of the threat air raids posed. On 7^th September 1940, the largest air raid of the war commenced. Rather than bombing military positions, the Germans turned their attention to the city of London with a population of around 9 millions people. The aim was to massacre as many people as possible. Over a five night blitz, 15,205 people were killed and many more seriously injured from the attacks, as the attempted massacre, succeeded. Higham and Rushden saw this as an un-imaginary sight as their raids were incomparable and largely down scaled.

            Jimmy told me:

            “The news of the “Blitz” came on the radio and everyone’s spirits and moral just shattered in a second.”

The government wanted to ensure the community was united together to help fight the war on the home front. They posted publicity posters around the streets which publicly encouraged individuals to make sacrifices towards the war effort and help inspire people. Many places set up fundraising activities and events, to raise money and awareness of the bravery of soldiers and the desperate need of funds to aid the war effort. An amazing £83,481 was raised in just one weekend in Higham and the community pulled together, despite the small number of population, to raise a lot of well contributed money.

This just proves the strong feelings that the people of Higham and Rushden had concerning the war and how much they wanted to help from on the Home Front. Much money was raised all over the country and this was fantastic for the moral of individuals’ country-wide.

Prisoners of War were also held in the countryside and they were forced to work on farms and help on the Home Front. They appeared to be treated well although they had many rules and regulations to follow. There was a German POW camp and an Italian POW camp in Rushden and Higham, which held soldiers that had ejected from planes during an air raid.

Eddie Sherwood, the Italian POW camp leader, was a very keen gardener who was noted to have said:

“I believe the prisoners can benefit from helping on the British home front, and they can help grow our food and see just how strong the British are as a community.”

With Chelveston air base being local to Rushden and Higham, many American soldiers would have been living in and around the areas, with their arrivals coming from the Rushden Train Station. They mixed well in the community, but as many women were alone now their partners were at war, American soldiers were thought to have seized the opportunity of vulnerable and lonely woman. Foreign Solders, fundraising and POW camps all affected the community in different ways, from excitement and a boost in moral, to living amongst the capture enemy and strangers.

Mark Wilson

History Coursework – Northern Ireland

            The Republicans and the Loyalists are still involved in the peace processes that have haunted Northern Ireland for years. The Republicans are people who believe Northern Ireland should become a part of Ireland, whilst the Loyalists are people who believe Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom. Since May 1921, Northern Ireland has been a separate country to its adjacent neiboroughs in Southern Ireland. This has since led to further disruption in the countries, as an overwhelmingly populated catholic Southern Ireland feel that Ulster, (Northern Ireland,) should be a part of the Republic of Ireland.

            The first problems to arise concerning the leadership of Ireland went back to the times of Henry VIII, who overthrew the church’s dominance and turned England into a mainly Protestant area. With this transfer of beliefs, Ireland remained mainly Catholic, and when Henry VIII’s son Edward VI and his daughter Mary’s reign at the English thrown, Elizabeth I became queen. She decided to continue her father’s ideas and therefore planted Protestant civilians into an area of Ireland. This caused a huge conflict in the country and ever since, war and violence have been the foundation of a long awaited peace treaty.

            In recent years, many events and traumas have occurred in Ulster, caused by the conflict and hatred between two religions, the Protestants and Catholics. The Protestant people, mainly living in the area of Ulster, are loyal to the United Kingdom and staying a part of the country, were as the Catholics want a unity of Ireland.

            Attempts at peace treaties have occurred during the history of Ireland and still are being negotiated to this day. Many people are involved in these talks and represent different view points and opinions on the situation and circumstances of Ulster. The SDLP, Social Democratic and Labour Party, are a Republican political group which, unlike the IRA, another Republican group whose political representation is via Sinn Fein, are a non-violent organisation. The Ulster Union Party is a politically loyalist group who do not refer to violence to promote their feelings, whilst the UVF, Ulster Volunteer Force, have been known to be violent and aggressive for their cause.        

John Hume, a Catholic Republican, was, in 1979, named leader of the SDPL, the largest Catholic Party in Northern Ireland. A former teacher, Mr Hume first came to prominence through the civil rights movement in the late 1960s, when Catholics demanded substantial changes to the way Northern Ireland was run. He helped to found the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party in 1970, later taking over as its leader in 1979. It is a role that has won him influence in Dublin, London, Brussels and Washington. He has been one of the driving figures behind many of the significant attempts to resolve the Northern Ireland problem over the last 30 years. Like the Democratic Unionist Party leader Ian Paisley, he is one of the most enduring figures on the Northern Ireland political stage. Mr Hume was a member of the power-sharing executive set up after the Sunningdale Agreement in December 1973, and helped to shape the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which for the first time gave Dublin a limited say in the affairs of Northern Ireland. In 1988, Mr Hume began a series of contacts with the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, which were to prove crucial in developing the current process. Further talks became public in 1993 amid considerable controversy and hostility, especially from unionists. In defiant mood, Mr Hume declared he did not care "two balls of roasted snow" about all the criticism he faced. The SDLP leader's strategy was to try to persuade Sinn Fein that the problem in Ireland was not so much the British presence but the divisions between the people of Ireland, unionist and nationalist. Around the same time, contact between the UK and Irish governments led to the Downing Street Declaration, followed by the first IRA ceasefire in 1994. Mr Hume strongly supported the view that any talks about the future of Northern Ireland should be as inclusive as possible, and when a deal was agreed on Good Friday this year, the participants included Sinn Fein as well as political representatives of Protestant paramilitaries. He went on to campaign vigorously for a Yes vote in the referendum on the agreement, symbolically shaking hands with his co-Nobel prize winner, Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, in an effort to swing the unionist vote. Mr Hume topped the poll in the Foyle constituency in the 1998 assembly elections with 12,581 votes. The SDLP leader also comfortably topped the poll in the 1997 general election in the constituency with 25,109 votes. He has been Foyle's MP since the constituency was created in 1983 and a member of the European Parliament since 1979. But his huge workload has taken a toll on his health, and Mr Hume stood aside to let fellow SDLP member Seamus Mallon assume the Deputy First Minister role in the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

            In 1998, John Hume’s efforts in the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty process were recognised and he received a joint Nobel Peace Prize award, with the UUP leader David Trimble.

            David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Union Party, is strongly loyalist. His Protestant beliefs have been foundational in his attempts to keep Ulster as a part of the United Kingdom.

In 1995, he appeared at the annual Drumcree parade, hand-in-hand with hardliner Ian Paisley before hundreds of Orangemen after they won the stand-off with the nationalist community of the Garvaghy Road.

Three years later he became the first leader of the Ulster Unionists to negotiate with Sinn Fein. However, his focus throughout 1999 on paramilitary decommissioning and the IRA's apparent refusal to disarm serves as a reminder that the Good Friday Agreement was only the first step on a long road towards building trust between the different communities of Northern Ireland.

Mr Trimble, a barrister and Queen's University lecturer by profession, has been accused by many of his own camp of being the man who sold out to the Republicans. And while he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume of the SDLP, nationalist critics have often shown little faith in his ability to bring the unionist people with him. A veteran of Northern Ireland politics, Mr Trimble was involved in the hardline Vanguard Party led by William Craig in the early 1970s. Years later he described Mr Craig's infamous 1972 speech where he spoke of loyalists "duty to liquidate the enemy" as "over the top". Mr Trimble entered mainstream unionism in 1978. In 1990 he was elected as MP for Upper Bann. Five years later he became the surprise winner of the leadership race in the wake of his Drumcree appearance. Despite his reputation from the 1970s and opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Mr Trimble showed he was prepared to upset unionists by meeting with the main party leaders in the Republic. Mr Trimble lost the support of more than half of his parliamentary colleagues during the peace talks which culminated in the Good Friday Agreement. But Mr Trimble carried a majority of the UUP's ruling council with him and went on to persuade a fractured unionist community to vote for the Agreement, albeit with a smaller majority than he would have wished for. In scenes that had seemed impossible just a few years before, Mr Trimble was named first minister with the SDLP's Seamus Mallon as his deputy. In its early days, the relationship personified the possibilities of a permanent change in the political culture of the province. That relationship collapsed in July 1999 when Mr Trimble's party refused to sit with Sinn Fein on the Northern Ireland executive until the IRA began decommissionig. The decision put power-sharing on hold indefinitely. But the recall of Senator George Mitchell put the process back on track, and Mr Trimble supported the plan to form a power-sharing executive first, linked to a commitment from the IRA to join the decommissioning process. It was a major gamble by Mr Trimble and many unionists spoke out against forming an executive before the IRA began decommissioning. But Mr Trimble won the backing he needed at an historic meeting of the Ulster Unionist council on November 27, 1999, when members voted 480 to 349 in favour of the plan. It seemed to be a decisive step, and as Mr Trimble observed to Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams: "We have done our bit. Mr Adams, it is over to you. We have jumped, you follow." When the IRA refused to jump by handing over any of its weapons three months later, however, Mr Trimble declared that his party could no longer continue in government with Sinn Fein. This led to the suspension of the executive. By May 2000, Mr Trimble was back in government after a complicated sequence of statements and deals led to him agreeing to return as the IRA, for the first time in its history, opened up some of its arms dumps for independent inspection. But it has not proved enough for Mr Trimble’s critics inside and outside of the party. Shortly before the 2001 general election, Mr Trimble announced that he would quit as first minister by July 1 if there had been no IRA decommissioning. The ultimatum was designed to shore up support within his party and head-off the challenge of the anti-agreement Democratic Unionists. But the tactic failed and the UUP party was severely damaged at the polls - and ultimately so was Mr Trimble.

The involvement of Mr Trimble in the Northern Ireland Peace Negotiations have been of a huge impact, with the first ever negotiations with Sinn Fein, being a landmark in his political career.

Gerry Adams, the Catholic Republican leader of Sinn Fein, is the political voice of the violent and aggressive IRA. His contribution to the situation has been revolutionary, as the IRA, a terrorist organisation have been given a political voice, rather than just using violence as their communication to the situation. A former barman, the Sinn Fein president comes from a strongly republican family. In security circles, it is believed he has held senior positions in all branches of the republican movement, including the IRA, but he has never been convicted of membership of that organisation.

Interned by the British government in 1971, he was considered important enough within the republican leadership to be released in July 1972, to take part in secret talks in London with then-Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Mr Adams has been the key figure in developing the political strategy of the republican movement along with his close colleague Martin McGuinness.

In 1979, he said that the aims of republicans could not be achieved simply by military means. The statement was a prelude to what became known as the twintrack strategy of "the armalite and the ballot box" - pursuing republican goals through both violent and political means.

Following the 1981 hunger strike in which 10 republicans died, Sinn Fein's base was given renewed strength. Mr Adams persuaded the republicans to place increasing emphasis on the political strategy and success of Sinn Fein.

Mr Adams was elected party president in 1983 and under his leadership the party took the historic step of abandoning its policy of abstention from the Irish Parliament.

He was also elected MP for West Belfast in 1983. He lost the seat to the SDLP in 1992, but later regained it in 1997. He has never taken his place at Westminster. Mr Adams began a series of contacts with the SDLP leader John Hume, which in 1993 became the foundation of the modern peace process. He helped deliver the first IRA ceasefire in 1994.

When this collapsed in February 1996, with a bomb attack in London, it raised two key questions. Firstly, if he didn't know, what was his real influence upon the IRA - could he deliver anything at all? Secondly, many unionist critics pointed out that if he did know that the ceasefire was to be broken, was Adams only committed to the peace process when it tactically suited Republican goals.

With the ceasefire restored, Mr Adams eventually led his party into the multi-party talks at Stormont which concluded with the Good Friday Agreement.

He has persuaded his supporters to contemplate steps many people had thought impossible, including taking their places in the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, which was set up under the agreement.

In the run-up to the deadline for the formation of a new Northern Ireland executive in March 1999, he insisted that the IRA could not yet be persuaded to give up its arms and that the weapons issue should be considered as part of a wholescale "decommissioning of all the guns", including the British security aparatus.

When the process appeared to be floundering in the autumn of 1999, Mr Adams' statement committing Sinn Fein to "all aspects" of the Good Friday Agreement, including decommissioning, was among several key moments following Senator George Mitchell's final review of the peace process, leading to the establishment of a powersharing executive.

But while the peace process has stuttered since then, it appears to have done Gerry Adams no harm. Sinn Fein became the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland after it doubled its number of MPs to four in the 2001 general election - something that analysts have dubbed the "greening of the west".

The question from observers is whether that will become something more, the greening of the north. The question being asked by unionists, is whether Gerry Adams’ strategy remains that of 20 years ago or just purely peaceful means.

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein have allowed access to the IRA, which presented negotiable options with them to ceasefire and stop their terrorist acts. The ceasefire of the IRA on August 31^st 1994 was followed by the ceasefire of the Loyalist forces in Ulster on the 13^th of October 1994, and a less fearful condition in Ulster was now existent, thanks to Gerry Adams.

Another man involved in the peace attempts was Ian Paisley, a loyalist protestant and leader of the DUP. He played parts in both the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

A half century after he first emerged, Mr Paisley's determination to resist any compromise which might, in his view, weaken Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom has remained absolute.

His politics and religious beliefs are inextricably linked and the Free Presbyterian Church, which he founded in 1951, remains the cornerstone.

Mr Paisley’s large stature and booming voice first attracted major public attention in 1963 when he organised a protest march against the decision to lower the union flag at Belfast City Hall to mark the death of Pope John. A year later, he threatened to tear down an Irish Tricolour displayed in a Belfast Sinn Fein office, if the authorities did not remove it first.

The authorities attempted to prevent the Paisley march. But in removing the flag themselves, they sparked the worst riot that Belfast had witnessed in decades. Fierce opposition to the Catholic Church combined with a determination to resist the cause of Irish nationalism has always been the cornerstone of Mr Paisley's beliefs.

He was elected an MP in 1970, and an MEP in 1979 and he has used the positions to launch public denunciations and accusations of betrayal against anyone who he regards as an enemy of Protestant Ulster. In the 1960s, the reform-minded Ulster Unionist Prime Minister Terence O'Neil was berated as a traitor to the unionist cause. In later years, when direct rule was imposed from London, successive secretaries of state for Northern Ireland have endured his wrath. Mr Paisley resisted any agreement that he believed would extend the influence of the Irish Republic into the affairs of Northern Ireland.

He opposed the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement and was a key player in the Ulster Workers' Strike which brought down the subsequent but short-lived power-sharing administration. He also resisted the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 and led the campaign against the Good Friday Agreement. This is the position he holds to this day.

He is fiercely opposed to any attempt to let Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, take up ministerial posts, or to set up cross-border bodies between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

To that end, he is officially opposed to the Northern Ireland Assembly - but has refused to pass to others the two assembly posts his party is entitled to hold.

While he tells the electorate that he will have no truck with Sinn Fein, his critics say that he appears relaxed with his own party enjoying the trappings of shared power in the administration.

But those who have sought to write him off time and time again have perhaps reckoned without his political staying power.

Interviewed by Peter Taylor for his BBC series and book, Loyalists, Mr Paisley rejected all criticism that had ever been levelled against him, everything from being the immovable face of unionism to the mouthpiece of sectarianism.

Mr Paisley’s long-term contribution has seen his involvement in two of the crucial peace agreements of Ulster and his passion to find peace for Northern Ireland has been well recognised.

As the Northern Ireland Political groups have been well recognised with their leaders fronting their opinions, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley, David Trimble and John Hume, other British politicians have been involved with the talks.

John Major was prime minister of Britain form 1990-1997, and with help from Bill Clinton and Senator Mitchell, he engineered the Downing Street Declaration. Tony Blair then became Prime Minister from 1997+ and was heavily involved with the Good Friday Agreement.

The paramilitaries were ordered to ceasefire on both sides of the conflict in the year 1994. August 31^st saw the IRA call a ceasefire, which Loyalist paramilitaries responded to with a ceasefire on October 13^th. By the early 1990’s, the loyalist paramilitaries had begun to take violent actions to activists of the IRA and Sinn Fein, with attacks and brutal force being aimed towards Republicans. They believed that with this violence, a halt to the attacks made by IRA would occur and this continued well into the 1990’s. But with the violence came consequences as many were killed and families were broken. The ceasefire in 1994 came as a long awaited situation and peace was temporarily restored whilst peace talks were held.

The Americans also played a part in the peace process, with Bill Clinton and Senator Mitchell the main aid for the talks. They acted as a neutral observer in the peace talks and provided their neutral opinions towards what should occur. This was seen as a boast for both the British, who had a strong ally in the Americans, and for the Irish, who had history with travellers from Ireland entering the USA many years ago.

Which Emotion is most powerfully conveyed to the Audience in Romeo and Juliet – Love or Conflict?

            Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story written in Elizabethan times by William Shakespeare, and tells of an epic feud between two households and the true, yet forbidden, love of Romeo and Juliet.

            The play is set in Verona, Italy, where two families, the Capulets and the Montagues, hold an ancient grudge filled with hatred and conflict. As the dispute reaches new levels, an innocent, despite forbidden, love emerges, as Romeo, a Montague and Juliet, a Capulet, fall deeply and passionately in love.

            The Shakespearian play is dominated by two main emotions of conflict and love, conveyed throughout the entire story, interlinking with each other, being expressed in various manners and emphasised in each scene.

            Conflict, the hatred of the two households, is conveyed in many scenes including Act III Scene I, where the Capulets come to seek vengeance on Romeo for showing at their party in a previous scene. Another scene of conflict is that which follows the prologue, where a brawl ensues in a public area of Verona.

            The emotions of love are, too, present in almost every scene of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet fall in love and along with the love that structures the dignity and pride of the two families, builds the foundation of strong, intense love conveyed in the play.

            Act II Scene II and Act V Scene III are two main scenes that show the relationships of characters, such as the Capulet family and their loyalty to each other, or the love of Romeo and Juliet, in good depth and detail.

            The prologue begins the play with a brief summary of what the story will reveal to the audience. The lines,

            … “ancient grudge,” …

And

… “civil blood makes civil hands unclean,” …

Both express the hatred of the families towards one another, and the civil brawling on the streets of Verona.

It then tells of a love between two people, emerging through the hatred and unrest.

“A pair of star-crossed lover,”

emphasising that a love bound by fate and written in the stars, will unfold before the audience.

This love is described to end the strife of their parents and bring peace through the bereavement of their deaths.

The prologue reveals that the conflict, the ancient grudge, is conquered by the death of two lovers, who end the strife of the households.

Shakespeare uses strong, powerful adjectives to describe the hatred and love detailed within the prologue.

“Whose “misadventures piteous” overthrows,” …

Shows two detailed and powerful descriptive words which emphasise the meaning of the line.

The theme of the prologue is to set the plot for the play, and it is structured as a sonnet, which is a typical Shakespearean poem. It uses a rhyming scheme of A,B,A,B, with powerful adjectives to detail the meaning promoted in the significant, (to people of Elizabethan times who would appreciate the powerful words,) prologue. The prologue was so important in dramatic terms as it was the beginning of the play and set the plot for the future storyline, which was already becoming aware as the prologue provides a summary of events to come.

In the play, each character is used to show or have a part relating to love or conflict. The two main characters of the story are Romeo and Juliet, both heavily involved in expressing love, attraction and true feelings for each other in several scenes. The most famous scene for the declaration of love between these two characters would be, Act II, Scene II, in which Romeo and Juliet play their recognisable balcony scene.

Romeo, however, is also extremely involved in the conveyance of conflict in various scenes. Along with other characters, Mercutio his best friend, Benvolio his cousin, Tybalt, a Capulet and Juliet’s cousin, and Paris, who was to wed Juliet before she dies. Romeo is a part of both Act III Scene I and Act V Scene III in which the main emphasis and expression of conflict occurs.

In Act III Scene I the main events revolve around the expression of divergence and hatred, whilst love still interlinks in the scene and with the conflicting issues as well. In this scene, Tybalt is on a mission of vengeance and in a rage as the presence of Romeo and his friends at the Capulet Party provoked his anger and antagonism. He then confronts Romeo and his friend Mercutio, with Benvolio also present, in a fury and an argument which gets out of hand. Romeo, who expresses his desire not to fight with Tybalt as he cannot due to an unknown love, his secret love of Juliet, so Tybalt attacks Romeo who will not draw his sword. Mercutio then steps in to defend his friend and with his support he finds himself slain at the hands of a misaimed plunge at Romeo by Tybalt. The last words of Mercutio, “a plague on both your houses” emphasises his loyalty throughout the play has secretly been shadowing his opinion of this unjustified and stupid feud.

With Mercutio murdered, Romeo chases Tybalt in a state of resentment, ultimately killing Tybalt and eventually being banished from Verona for his murder. The murder is a use of dramatic irony as the audience are aware of the relationship between Tybalt and Romeo, as Romeo has married Juliet, Tybalt’s cousin, but Mercutio has no idea.

The events of the scene relate to both love and conflict as Romeo’s rejection of a fight conveys his strong and intense love for Juliet, to which he will not hurt her or her family, and conflict correlates with the scene immensely, as two murders and a fight ensue.

Act III Scene I reveals different emotions and characteristics of certain characters. Romeo portrays his love and his loyalty as he will not fight with Tybalt, but when things turn malicious he seeks revenge on his friend’s murderer. Mercutio shows his loyalty to both the Montague’s and Romeo as he defends his friend instantly when he is in need. Tybalt is perceived as malevolent and vicious as he seeks a fight in which he eventually kills an innocent man.

Anger is conveyed strongly in the words Shakespeare writes in the scene.

“A plague on both your houses,” Mercutio shouts as he is stabbed and dies showing his anger as he wishes a deadly disease upon both of the two feuding households, in his attempt at cursing them for their stupid grudge. This is also significant as at the time the play was written and performed, outbreaks of the plague and disease were a growing concern for the Elizabethans.

This may have been more strongly perceived by an audience in Elizabethan times, but in the modern society, this quote would have been seen as a lesser insult than in the time of the plays release. Other language is also overlooked as less of an importance in our society, for in Elizabethan times, language was different and they were, too, highly religious.

In Act II Scene II, the famous balcony scene, Romeo appears to be in the bushes outside Juliet’s balcony at her Capulet house. He listens as she declares her love for him and speaks of why he has to be of the enemy, a Montague. Romeo then reveals himself and they have a conversation in which they express their love for one another.

In Act II Scene II, the events relate entirely to the announcement of love and affection between Romeo and Juliet. He compares her to an angel and then enriches his comparisons until he reaches a stage in which he contrasts her to a saint. Act V Scene III is a mixture of both conflict, for the death of Paris occurs, and love, for the two lovers kill themselves to signify that they could no longer live if the other was dead.

Act II Scene II relates to the historical and social context of the Elizabethan period, for Romeo’s praise of Juliet is typical of the era. He begins by comparing his love for her to the sun, high of energy and the light of heaven, which defeats the darkness and dullness of the moon in its essence. As people of this era were very religious and believed in God and heaven, his comparison to an angel will have been of high praise, but then he contrasts her to a saint, complementing her immensely. This scene reveals to the audience of Romeo’s lovable nature and Juliet’s fighting spirit as she declares that nothing will defeat their love.

Act V Scene III is the penultimate scene, in which the two lovers both take their own lives after Romeo kills Paris for intervening. Romeo enters the chapel of rest where Juliet lies, supposedly dead, although she is only sleeping, only to find Paris blocking his way to his wife. A fight ensues in which Paris is killed and Romeo proceeds to his wife’s location. He then takes some poison he has brought and kills himself beside her. Juliet awakens to find her husband dead and taking his dagger, she stabs herself and commits suicide as well.

Act V Scene III shows another relation to the historical and social context of the time which in doing so, reveals that Paris does has strong feelings for Juliet for he is prepared to fight and ultimately die for her. Romeo, however, also reveals the same emotions and reaction to the situation as he too fights, and eventually wins the fight, for Juliet, showing he is determined and indomitable to get to her body. Juliet is also prepared to die for her loved one and reveals that she would rather die than live without Romeo, who she finds dead beside her.

Romeo’s actions and feelings are very much emphasised in this scene, whereas in the entirety of the play, he shows only sections of these emotions. This scene shows his desire and love for Juliet, that he would do anything for her and to be with her, that he is prepared to sacrifice his life for her and risk death to be with her. In other scenes he shows his love, his anger and loyalty to friends, but in this scene it brings together all his characteristics and personality features into one scene.

The audience of this period would respond to Act II Scene II differently to that of an audience in a more modern society, for they would appreciate Romeo’s compliments more, his contrasts and comparisons would be more understood and thought of, for the audience would have had the same opinions, were as time has changed the manner of compliments today. This response is brought about by the strong and extremely flattering adjectives used as accolades about Juliet.

I believe that in Romeo and Juliet, the main emotion conveyed throughout the play is that of love, for every conflict that is encountered, is fuelled by love and loyalty. In Act III Scene I, the death of Mercutio is only brought about because Romeo’s love for Juliet prevents him from fighting for himself. In Act V Scene III, the conflict which kills Paris only occurs because of Romeo’s desire to see his wife and Paris’s love for Juliet, despite her not loving him.

Mark Wilson