The designation of terrorists should not be controversial. They were recognized as such at the time, and accepted the description. Their activities definitely fit the current definition of terrorism. Nor is the evidence unavailable. You can easily read it on the Wikipedia article in more detail than I can provide in this short essay, but even that fails to tell the full story.
For example, he points out that, long before the start of the twentieth century many women were allowed to vote - and be elected - in local elections and county councils. As far back as 1881 the Isle of Man had introduced votes for women. Women had gained the right to vote in various American states, along with various countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Finland and Norway. Meanwhile, back in the UK itself, the House of Commons passed a women's suffrage motion by a majority of 71 votes in 1897. In other words, we are looking at a movement which was basically unstoppable.
At the same time, it wasn't as if all men could vote. After the reform acts of 1884-5 middle class men were able to vote, but there was a property and residence requirement. Forty percent still did not have the right to vote. The campaign for woman's suffrage was thus part of a larger issue of extending the franchise. Interestingly, Webb points out that there was not a major push by working men for the vote. They were more concerned with gaining better pay and conditions through their unions. Their wives probably looked at it the same way.
In this respect, we should note that the position of the suffragettes in their official outline of aims was:
"The Women's Social and Political Union are NOT asking for the vote for every woman, but simply that sex should cease to be a disqualification for the franchise."
In other words, as the socialists complained, their slogan, "Votes for Women" really meant, "Votes for Ladies". The Labour Party knew that, if successful, it would simply double the votes of their class opponents.
The WSPU possessed, at its maximum, 5,000 members, of which perhaps 1,000 representing the hard core. The NUWSS, the largest suffragist group, but not the only one, had 50,000.
What the suffragettes had was money. In those days, a male labourer earned about a pound (£1) a week, and his female equivalent somewhat less. The result was that, in 1908 the annual income of the Labour Party, raised largely by membership subscriptions, amounted to £9,674. In contrast, that of the WSPU in 1909 came to £21,213 and, as we shall see, it more than doubled in the following five years. The members contributed only about £50 of this; this rest came as donations from very wealthy ladies. Ironically, the greater the number of terrorist actions they committed, the more the money rolled in. Readers can no doubt think of examples of modern radical groups financed by the ultra rich. As a result, the Pankhursts didn't need to rely on the votes of their members for their leadership; it was a completely undemocratic, authoritarian organization. Its rallies were not dissimilar to those of certain political movements of the 1930s. Nor is this comparison a slur; several of the leading suffragettes later joined the fascist movement and made no secret of the fact that they were transferring their adulation of Emmeline Pankhurst to Oswald Mosley.
Sporadic acts of vandalism were committed in the early days i.e. in 1909 to 1910, but the campaign of terror really began in earnest in 1912. Let me quote from the Wikipedia:
One of the most dangerous attacks committed by the suffragettes, the attack on the Theatre Royal on 19 July, was carried out by Mary Leigh, Gladys Evans, Sarah Janes Baines under the pseudonym 'Lizzie Baker', and Mabel Capper, who attempted to set fire to the building during a packed lunchtime matinee attended by Prime Minister H.H. Asquith. A canister of gunpowder was left close to the stage and petrol and lit matches were thrown into the projection booth, which contained highly combustible film reels; it exploded as the audience, including Asquith, left the theatre.
If such a crime were committed today, I don't think anyone would hesitate to call it terrorism. It also illustrates another point: people could easily have been injured or killed. In fact, earlier that day the same Mary Leigh had hurled a hatchet at Prime Minister Asquith, missed, and cut another MP on the ear. Direct attacks such as that on individuals, however, were rare, but little attempt appears to been taken to avoid harm to the general public, especially not the lower classes. Houses of the rich and influential were burned when they were "unoccupied" - by their owners, that is, but not by the skeleton staff and builders. Many postal workers were injured by letter bombs. There is also good reason to believe the fire at the Portsmouth Dockyard in December 1913 was the work of the suffragettes who, though they never denied it, did not acknowledge it - a good thing, because two men were killed.
The smashing of shop windows represented only minor acts of terror. More impressive was the campaign of arson and bombing of homes, sporting clubs, churches, railways, museums, art galleries, and the like. How many? Webb lists 44 arson attacks and 43 bombings, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Wikipedia cites the historian C.J. Bearman that:
[t]here was an average of 21 bombing and arson incidents per month in 1913, and 15 per month in 1914, with there being an arson or bombing attack in every month between February 1913 and August 1914. Bearman calculates that there was a total of at least 337 arson and bombing attacks between 1913 and 1914, but states that the true number could be well over 500.
Read the whole article. Seriously, how can any rational person deny that this was a terrorist campaign?
I've already noted that a male labourer typically received £1 a week. The WSPU employed its members as agents to do the bombing and burning for £1 to £4 - a lot more than they would get from honest work, and no doubt a lot more fun, provided they weren't caught. Even so, I suspect that the law would have acted much more harshly with them had they been men, but it didn't know how to handle female terrorists. Once imprisoned, they went on hunger strikes. Since the authorities could not afford to have women die on them, they resorted to forcible feeding, which the victims considered torture. The law then allowed them to be released until they had recovered before being re-arrested, a procedure the suffragette leadership called the "Cat and Mouse" Act.
How was the leadership faring during all of this? Emmeline was arrested several times, and was once force fed. However, her daughter, Christabel, now in charge of the organization, fled to Paris, where a courier visited her every week to receive orders. To quote Webb,
[f]or the whole of the two and a half years that Christabel Pankhurst lived in Paris she did no work at all. All her living expenses were being met by the WSPU. These expenses included an apartment at 8 Avenue de la Grande Armee in the centre of Paris and only a hundred yards of so from the Arc de Triomphe. While other members of the WSPU were on hunger strike and being forcibly fed in Holloway Prison, Christabel Pankhurst was living the life of a well-off lady in the heart of Paris, hobnobbing with princesses. [p 104]
Readers can no doubt recall recent examples of how money raised for radical causes permitted the leadership to live high on the hog.
By 1914 the WSPU was faced with declining recruitment. It was bleeding members to the suffragists, while two of Emmeline's younger daughters broke if off with her. Their rallies required police protection from angry crowds, the women angrier than the men. The police were heavily cracking down on their activities. One thing they didn't lack, however, was money. The more violent their actions, the more generous were their wealthy benefactors. Their total receipts for 1913/14 amounted to £46,875.
How it ended.
The last suffragette outrage occurred on 1st August 1914. Three days later, Britain declared war on Germany. Immediately, Emmeline, who was in France, ordered her supporters to give up the struggle and concentrate on the war effort. The Government then called an amnesty and released the suffragette prisoners. Emmeline threw herself into the war effort, including the execrable White Feather Campaign. She lost interest in Votes for Ladies Women, and when the suffragists invited her to join in a submission to a parliamentary conference on women's suffrage, she declined. After the war, when Votes for Ladies had been won, she rallied against communism and in 1928, the same year in which she died, she ran for election as a Conservative candidate. Meanwhile, Christabel had moved to the United States and campaigned for Seventh Day Adventism.
But ... but ... what about Votes for Women?
The abandonment of the campaign of terrorism removed a major obstacle to women's suffrage. The Cabinet had been divided for a long time. Prime Minister Asquith was against it, but his Chancellor, and future Prime Minister, David Lloyd George had long been in favour. (But they bombed his house just the same.) While it cannot be proved that, without the suffragettes the suffrage would have been granted earlier, they certainly impeded it. They weren't the only violent organization the Government had to contend with, and one thing the Government could not afford was be seen to be giving in the violence. (You will probably be able to think of a few modern examples.)
Meanwhile, many of the women's auxiliary of the Liberal Party, on whose labour they relied, were defecting to the suffragists. Nor had the suffragists been inactive. They had got the incipient Labour Party to agree to a complete reform of the franchise - and the Liberals were reliant on support from the minor parties. Also, there was the issue of the hundreds of thousands of young men fighting in the war, or performing civilian war work, who were not allowed to vote. Furthermore, not only had Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, and some US states had given women the vote before the war, but Denmark, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Germany, Hungary, and Lithuania did so during the war. The result was that in February 1918 the franchise has granted to all men from the age of 21 and women, with some property qualifications, from the age of 30. The difference was to prevent the female voters outnumbering the male survivors of the war. Ten years later the age for women was reduced to 21.
So what about the statue and the myth?
Poor Millicent Fawcett has been largely forgotten. They don't teach about her in school. It not until 2018 that a statue was erected in her honour - and then because of a complaint about the lack of statues of non-royal women in Parliament Square. On the other hand, a statue of Emmeline Pankhurst was unveiled in 1930, just two years after her death, near the Houses of Parliament. Later, a memorial was added to her daughter, Dame Christabel Pankhurst. (Yes, they gave her the female equivalent of a knighthood.) In the popular mind, they are credited with gaining votes for women, and it is assumed that all the women who campaigned for the suffrage were suffragettes, and that they were typically as benign as Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins.
You are no doubt aware of the current demand for removing statues, or at least telling the truth about those portrayed. But at least nearly all statues commemorate the good deeds the person did, irrespective of any dark past which others might later dig up. But the Pankhurst memorial is obviously an exception, for the good they were supposed to have done was a sham. I don't suggest throwing it into the Thames, where it would create an obstacle. Perhaps it could be removed to some obscure museum. At least a plaque should be added telling the truth: that they were the leaders of a small group of terrorists who harmed a lot of people and impeded the march towards female suffrage.
No comments:
Post a Comment