The Crusade and the Outcome

The March

• Following the ecumenical service, the march commenced. The marchers carried blue and white banners inscribed with "Jarrow Crusade."
• The term "crusade" was used to distinguish the march from the NUWM's hunger marches. The men marched in a disciplined, "army style" formation, parading each morning before setting off. The march was led by individuals carrying the petition, accompanied by a small mouth-organ band to boost morale.
• Ellen Wilkinson joined the marchers at various points along the route before attending the Labour Party Conference, where she advocated for the men's cause. However, she failed to secure support from the Labour Party; some members criticized what they saw as a reckless endeavor.
• During the march, some men learned that the Unemployment Assistance Board was cutting their employment benefits because they were not available for work while participating.
• Despite this, the marchers received widespread support from people of all political affiliations, with donations of food and clothing. Meanwhile, the "unnecessary hardship for those taking part." government criticized such marches for causing
• On Sunday, November 1, the marchers arrived in Hyde Park, London, to address a gathered crowd. The Communist Party, which was holding a nearby talk, canceled its event and encouraged its supporters to join the gathering for Jarrow. During her speech at Hyde Park, Wilkinson stated:

"Jarrow as a town has been murdered. It has been murdered as a result of the arrangement of two great combines [groups of companies]—the shipping combine on one side and the steel combine on the other... What has the government done? I do not wonder that this cabinet does not want to see us."

• On November 4, Wilkinson presented the Jarrow petition to Parliament and delivered the following address:

"During the last 15 years, Jarrow has experienced an industrial depression unprecedented in the town's history. Its shipyard is closed. Its steelworks have been denied the right to reopen. Where formerly 8,000 people, many of them skilled workers, were employed, now only 100 men are temporarily employed. The town cannot be left derelict, and therefore your petitioners humbly pray that His Majesty's Government and this honorable House should recognize the urgent need for work to be provided for the town without further delay."

Government View

• During the progress of the March, the government publicly expressed its stance on the Jarrow March, as well as other concurrent marches.
• The British Cabinet chose this time to announce that these marches on London were "altogether undesirable." The government emphasized that the country is governed by a parliamentary system, which allows each area to voice its grievances through its elected representatives.
• Therefore, "processions to London cannot claim to have any constitutional influence on policy" (The Irish Times, 16 October 1936). Despite these views, the men rejected the government's position and continued their march.

London and Home - The Outcome

• After twenty-three days of marching and two weekend rests, the Jarrow marchers reached London on Saturday, October 31. They were led into the city by Ellen Wilkinson, Jarrow's Mayor, eleven councillors, and a Labrador mascot dog.

  

• Despite their efforts, the crusade had little immediate impact on those in power. The marchers held a demonstration in Hyde Park on November 1, but only 3,000 to 5,000 people attended, a stark contrast to the 250,000 who gathered days later for a National Hunger March. Ellen Wilkinson presented the Jarrow petition to Parliament on November 4, but Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin refused to meet with a delegation of the marchers.

• The men were disappointed with the overall process. They expressed their frustration: "We got turned down. We asked for a cup of tea, they gave us a cup of tea. When we got turned down in the House of Commons, that was it... You knew you were finished."

• The marchers returned to Jarrow by train, where they were welcomed by cheering and shouting crowds. The North Mail reported: "Never in the history of the town has there been such an exhibition of mass enthusiasm."

  

• However, the next day, the Unemployment Assistance Board reduced their unemployment benefits by between four and eleven shillings a week, citing their unavailability for work during the march.

Successes of the Jarrow March

Increased National Awareness

• The march successfully brought national attention to the plight of Jarrow's unemployed workers and the town's economic struggles.
• The media coverage and public sympathy raised awareness about the severe economic depression affecting the area.

Public Support

• The marchers received widespread support from the public along their route, including donations of food and clothing.
• This public backing demonstrated solidarity and concern for the marchers' cause, boosting their morale.

Symbolic Victory

• Despite not achieving immediate political results, the march became a symbol of working-class struggle and resilience.
• It highlighted the determination of the people of Jarrow to fight for their rights and for economic justice.

Failures of the Jarrow March

Lack of Immediate Policy Change

• The march did not result in any immediate policy changes or direct government action to address the economic problems of Jarrow.
• Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin refused to meet with the marchers, and their petition did not lead to significant legislative action.

Reduction in Benefits

• The Unemployment Assistance Board cut the marchers' unemployment benefits, penalising them for their participation. This action added to the hardships faced by the already struggling marchers and their families.

Political Isolation

• The Labour Party, which the marchers hoped would support their cause, criticised the march and did not fully back it. This lack of political endorsement limited the march's potential impact within the halls of power.

Limited Immediate Impact

• The march had little immediate effect on those in power, as evidenced by the relatively small turnout for their demonstration compared to other events like the National Hunger March.
• This indicated a limited immediate influence on policymakers and the general public's engagement with the issue.