Why did the suffragette movement in London turn violent in 1908 - Essay Example

Why did the suffragette movement in London turn violent in 1908? The struggle for the rights of women had begun long before the beginning of the twentieth century. Through much effort the women had accomplished many goals by the beginning of the twentieth century. Bonie and Judith (1988) mention the achievements of women in their book “A History of Their Own: Women in Europe.” According to the book, the women could work in town councils and school boards. They could also work as factory inspectors. Some women who owned enough property could also vote in selected regions and could also serve as mayors. But a larger majority of the women did not have the right to vote at all. According to Andrew Rosen (1974), the word “suffragette” was first used in 1906. The Daily Mail in London, on 10th January 1906, used the word “suffragette” to identify those women who adopted the method of action and violence in their campaign for their right to vote. “Suffragists” was used for those women who adopted peaceful and conventional methods in their campaign. Although the women had been fighting for their right to vote ever since the 1860s, the movement gained its momentum under the leadership of Emmeline Pankhurst and her two daughters Christabel and Sylvia. The Pankhursts’ established the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903. According to June Purvis (2003), Emmeline was moved by the plight of women in poverty. She believed that the only way the women could gain their rights in the society was through the right to vote. As June Purvis (2003) writes, Emmeline believed that “women.. had to form their own independent movement if the vote was to be won and to find new ways of breathing life into the women’s suffrage campaign.” Pankhurst disagreed with the ways of the NUWSS led by Millicent Garrett Fawcett. NUWSS had adopted peaceful and “ladylike” conventional methods of campaigning and also recruited men for various positions. According to Purvis (2003), “Emmeline was convinced that a fresh approach was needed and that women had to do the work themselves.” This led to the formation of the WSPU. It was made clear that the WSPU would be different from the NUWSS. They pledged to limit the membership to women only and to be satisfied with nothing but action. As Purvis (2003) writes, “Deeds, not words” was adopted as the main motto of the WSPU. The sisters believed that the conventional silent methods would not help the women in achieving the right to vote. They decided to adopt a direct confrontational approach. According to Purvis (2003), Christabel believed that the only effective approach would be to seek privileges from those already in government. An article by Melanie Philips published in the Daily Mail (2003) stated: “With her motto ‘Deeds, not words’, Mrs. Pankhurst decided that the way to jolt into life the near-moribund campaign to obtain the parliamentary vote for women was to stage militant spectaculars—such as harassing politicians and causing a public nuisance -- to seize popular attention.” Government’s refusal to accept the rights of women: October 13th 1905: A major factor that compelled the women to turn to violence was the government’s indifferent attitude towards the demands of the women. Andrew Rosen (1974) gives a detailed account of the rise of action in his book “Rise Up! Women”. On the eve of October 13th 1905, Christabel and Annie Kenny confronted the Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey with a direct question, “Will the Liberal Government give women the vote?” The question created uproar in the hall and the police tried to force the two ladies out of the hall. The two ladies were asked to write down their demands, which will be discussed later in the session. However the issue was never raised in the house. This angered Christabel who spat on the face of the policeman. The ladies were pushed into the South Street where according to the testimony of the policeman, Christabel again stuck him in the mouth. The voice of the ladies went unheard and thus unattended. The incident of the arrest attracted widespread media coverage, which highlighted the cause of the suffragettes. February 19th 1906: As Rosen (1974) writes in his book, on February 19th 1906, approximately 300 East End women arrived at St. James Station and marched to the Caxton Hall carrying red banners. The assembly was planned in accordance with the King’s speech at the parliament. After tea and buns in the back room the women were seated in the hall. Women from all classes had their representation in the assembly. The speakers Mrs. Pankhurst, Annie Kenny and Mrs. Montefiore waited for long for the King’s speech to celebrate whether the new government had included women’s enfranchisement in its programme. Unfortunately, once again the voice of the women remained unheard and there was no mention of women enfranchisement in the King’s speech. There was a huge cry of “shame” from every corner of the hall. Rosen (1974) quotes Mrs. Pankhurst on that occasion. She said, “We have risked our reputations, our limbs, and even our lives in the cause. But there is nothing.” The women marched towards the House of Commons. They marched the whole way through the cold rain to the Parliament Square where they were informed that only twenty women could go inside the inner hall. For at least two hours the women permitted inside lobbied indifferent MPs. The others waited outside in the cold rain. March 9th 1906: Rosen (1974) narrates the history of the suffragette movement in detail. On March 9th 1906, the women decided to meet the Prime Minister and convince him for their right to vote. This was the turning point for the suffragette movement. Rosen mentions a delegation of 300 women, representing over 1,25000 suffragists demanded of the Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman for their right to vote. In a meeting that lasted for an hour the Prime Minister agreed with the points of the delegation but also stated that he proposed to do nothing at all about it. According to Marcie Kligman (1996), the Prime Minister made it clear to the delegation that there was a difference of opinion over the issue of women suffrage in the Cabinet and the Liberal Party of which he was the member. He stated that his hands were tied and that the women could continue to practice the virtue of patience. His words infuriated the members of the delegation. According to David Morgan (1975) “the younger suffragettes realized that the polite methods previously used by the older generation were achieving nothing. The only option left was to act up for the press; the activists realized that tea parties would not do it, sensational publicity and martyrdom might. The Press would not be able to resist publishing sensational exploits.” Violence as a method to gain publicity: To gain publicity the women adopted violent methods. Their main aim was to get arrested and thus gain publicity. Rosen (1974) narrates the incident in which Annie Kenny addressed the crowd as she jumped on the Prime Minister’s car. She was arrested for this act. However no charges were pressed against her as the Prime Minister wanted to keep the matter off the public record. The incident led to a series of militant acts by the suffragettes. However the violent acts were relatively small in nature. It was not until 1908 that WSPU agreed to organize planned militant acts to gain immediate attention of the government. Purvis (2003) narrates the incident in his book. As expected, the government refused to acknowledge the women’s right to vote. Instead, Prime Minister Asquith stated that the government intended to “bring in a Reform Bill that would be worded in such a way as to admit a woman suffrage amendment, provided the amendment was on democratic lines and had the support of the women of the country, as well as the electorate,” A mass meeting of women was held in 1908 to give proof to both Belfour and Asquith that the women were really demanding the right to vote. However, Asquith remained unmoved. According to Purvis (2003), “Emmeline now realizes that the WSPU had exhausted argument and so supported the new forms of militancy.” The women adopted methods of heckling the government ministers, throwing stones and breaking the windows, graffiti, attacking the politicians and hunger strikes. Marcie Kligman (1996) states the change in the policies of WSPU in an article “The British Suffragette Movement”. “In its policy the WSPU was already stressing the importance of publicity; the members were encouraged to conduct the biggest publicity campaign ever known to make it more colorful and more commanding of attention than anything ever seen before.” Christabel moved one step ahead in winning the attention of the press. According to Melanie Philips (2003) article in the Daily Mail, “Edwardian England was a society where women were regarded as delicate and protected creatures. Realizing the enormous propaganda value from images of respectable women becoming victims of male brutality, Christabel masterminded a strategy of violent illegality whose aim was to get women sent to jail and thus turn them into martyrs.” Attacking Churchill: According to Rosen (1974), one of the most serious incidents in the campaign of gaining publicity was attacking Churchill in 1909. One of the members of WSPU attacked Churchill and hit him on the face shouting, “Take that, you brute! You brute! I will show you what English women can do.” The attacker, Theresa Garret, was charged with assaulting Churchill with a whip and was arrested. Jane Elderton (1993) writes about the suffragettes’ style of campaign in the following manner, “The suffragettes used their militant tactics to win as much publicity as possible to pressurize government. Their campaign of direct action was often spectacular, ranging from mass window smashing to arson. But their tactics meant the women faced constant arrest and Sylvia, like many other women, was hounded by the authorities.” According to Brian Harrison (1993) the violent acts of the suffragettes increased tremendously after 1908. As he writes, “Suffragette leaders explicitly ruled out taking the lives of others; they risked only the health of their own members. Martyrdom, not murder, was their style.” The militant acts kept on escalating. In 1911 there were reports of 176 false fire alarms and 22 convictions, in 1912, 425 calls and 27 convictions. By the end of 1912, as many as 5000 letters had already been destroyed by arson. The aim of the suffragettes was to get arrested and gain publicity and they were successful in it. The militants were arrested without resistance for such violent acts. According to Brian Harrison (1993), 116 militants were imprisoned in 1910, 188 in 1911 and 240 in 1912. There were 150 serious attacks on property by the suffragettes. Such attacks were shamelessly publicized in the “Suffragette”. Between 1912 and 1914 the suffragettes involved themselves in 107 incidents of arson. The incidents were related to destroying the works of art, which also included the mutilation of the Rokeby Venus at the National Gallery in March, and Clausens Primavera at the Royal Academy in May. According to Rosen (1974), in June 1913, an estimated £54,000 property was damaged by WSPU. Reports of an insurance officer indicate an estimated damage of worth £ 2,50000 to suffragettes’ incidents in 1913. Harrison (1993) states that “some newspapers claimed that twice as much damage was caused by only the most serious attacks on property; at least another £250,000 worth of damage was done in the first seven months of 1914.” According to Harrison (1993) some of the historians attributed the militancy to the psychological imbalance of the suffragette leaders. However this was not the case. According to Harrison, “Militancy did not stem from a psychological type but from what were seen as temporary tactical necessities.” Harrison points another factor, which led the women to adopt militancy tactics. He believes that the women adopted militancy not only as a means to gain publicity but also because they were influenced by the tradition. He quotes Christabel in his book. In 1908 Christabel stated that “the whole of our liberties have been won by action such as ours’, she declared, “only of a far more violent kind . . . Magna Carta itself was won by the threat of a breach of the peace.” According to Harrison, Christabel also referred to the Star Chamber and the role of violence in introducing Parliamentary Reforms. Harrison writes, “She told a meeting in October that the Reform Bills ‘were got by hard fighting, and they could have been got in no other way’. Christabel also referred to John Hampden and described law breaking as “right or wrong according to the nature of the law and the authority possessed by the lawgiver.” Suffragettes justified the WSPU acts of violence by often quoting Gladstone’s remarks in 1884, which said, “if no instructions had ever been addressed in political crises to the people of this country except to remember to hate violence, love order, and exercise patience, the liberties of this country would never have been attained.” Thus violence became the means to attain the right of vote for women. Publicity: Marcie Kligman (1996) mentions the publicity gained by the WSPU due to their militant acts. According to the plan of gaining publicity, the suffragettes continued their violent acts. They were arrested on various occasions and offered no resistance. The suffragettes refused to be fined and preferred to stay in prison and insisted on being called the political prisoners. While in prison, they continued their militant tactics and went on hunger strikes. Marion Wallace became the first hunger striker in 1909. She refused food and water without any consent of the members of the WSPU. Other suffragettes also followed Marion Wallace. The hunger strike drew the attention of the press and the interest of the public. The authorities forcefully fed the hunger strikers. They were fed through shoving down the steel tube through the nostrils and throat of the prisoned suffragettes. According to Barbara Castle (1987) “This process, once known to the press, aroused public outcry on the side of the suffragettes; this form of torture especially its being applied to women, still thought of as the weaker sex helped to stir up public anxiety. Even Conservative MPs [members of Parliament] joined in the protest in Parliament.” According to Marcie Kligman (1996), the militant tactics of the suffragettes were getting successful as the media gave a lot of attention to the brutalities of the prison authorities on the prisoned suffragettes. The pubic opinion also shifted towards the women. The issue of women suffrage became a national issue and its support grew even more as years passed. By 1912, approximately 150 local councils passed resolutions that supported the enfranchisement of women. The resolutions were sent to London for approval. The government was forced to react due to the increasing pressure. Although, it had been trying hard to avoid the matter for a long time. According to Kligman (1996), the Parliament drafted the Conciliation Bill in 1910. The main purpose of the Bill was to “embody a degree of womens enfranchisement that would be acceptable to the greatest number of MPs of all parties.” The leaders of the WSPU were of the view that their struggle for women enfranchisement would be finally rewarded. They decided to put an end to their militant tactics for the next nine months because they did not want to give any excuse to the government for delaying their demands. However, the results proved contrary to their expectations. This infuriated the members of the WSPU and they decided to resume their militant tactics to pressurize the government and at the same time to win popular support. In 1913, there was another attempt to implement the women enfranchisement Bill. The Franchise Reform Bill was once again talked out of the parliament due to some bureaucratic tactics. Once again the efforts of the suffragettes went futile. They became more dangerous and increased their violent tactics. They realized that their long and continuous struggle had all gone wasted. Kligman (1996) quotes Sylvia in his article, as she believed that destructive militancy was now inevitable. According to Rosen (1974), in January 1913, Mrs. Pankhurst declared that the suffragettes would become “guerrillists”. They would not refrain from adopting war like tactics but would consider the human life sacred. At the same time she also declared that they would not hesitate to damage as much property as they can to accomplish their demands. As a result of which telegraph and telephone wires linking London with Glasgow were destroyed and windows were smashed. An orchid house and the refreshment house at Kew Gardens and Regents Park respectively were burned. A railway carriage was also burned at Harrow. Most of the members of WSPU managed to escape from being arrested. However, they openly accepted the responsibility of all the militant deeds. On February 18th 1913, the members also destroyed a partly completed house that belonged to Lloyd George. According to Kligman (1996), there was a huge riot by the suffragettes when Asquith announced that there would be no further discussion on the issue of women suffrage. The newspapers dubbed it as the “Battle of the Downing Street”. It was at that time that the suffragettes’ militant tactics reached at its height. It was at this time also that they began to lose public support as well. The destructive nature of the suffragette’s campaign gave the parliamentarians a good reason for not giving the right to vote to women. As the parliamentarians stood firmly on their decision the actions of the suffragettes became all the more violent. According to Melanie Philip (2003), an axe was thrown at the Prime Minister. On another occasion he was attacked with a dog’s whip. Some even tried to tear off his clothes on a golf links in Scotland. The Chancellor of Exchequer received a package containing sulphuric acid that burst into flames when opened. Bombs were also placed at various places. Such violence repelled many who had previously supported the cause of women enfranchisement. Many people such as Sean Lang (1999) are of the view that the suffragettes failed in their cause because of the militancy and violence. The outbreak of the World War I disrupted the activities of the suffragettes. The women participated equally with men during the war days. The efforts of the women were widely appreciated. They were praised for being patriotic. According to Kligman (1996), recognizing the valuable role played by the women during the war, the British Parliament agreed to pass the Bill that allowed the women their right to vote. The Bill was passed with greater majority although Herbert Asquith opposed it bitterly. He signed it to avoid any further conflict. According to the Bill, women above the age of 30 were allowed to cast their votes in the national elections. Although it is stated that the role played by the women during the World War I was the only reason the women were given the right to vote. Still the role played by the violent tactic cannot be ignored. According to Kligman, “The militancy of the suffragettes served an invaluable purpose; without it, the government could have (and did, before 1913) stated that there was no real "evidence" suggesting that women even wanted the vote.” By using the militant tactics, the women kept the issue alive in the parliament. Militancy thus played a major role in giving the women their right to vote. References Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser, A History of Their Own: Women in Europe (New York: Harper, 1988), p.362. Castle, Barbara. Sylvia and Christabel Pankhurst (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p.117. Elderton, Jane. Suffragette Style, A Review of K. Dodd (ed.) A Slyvia Pankhurst Reader, (Manchaster University Press, 1993, International Socialism Journal, A 64, (September, 1994). 123 Harrison, Brian. The Act of Militancy: Violence and the Suffragettes, 1904-1914, in Peaceable Kingdom. Stability and Change in Modern Britain, eds. Michael Bentley and John Stevenson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 80-122. Kligman, Marcie. The Effect of Militancy In the British Suffragette Movement, RMHS, (1996) Retrieved on April 16, 2006 from http://welshcommunists.co.uk/suff.htm Lang, Sean. Why did the Suffragettes Fail? Why Had the Women’s Suffrage Movement Failed to Achieve the vote by 1914? Extracts from Parliamentary Reform, 1785-1928, (1999). Pg. 159 Morgan, David. Suffragists and Liberals: The Politics of Woman Suffrage in England, (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1975), p.38. Philips, Melanie. The Pankhurst’s Sexual Terrorism, Daily Mail, October 16th, 2003 Purvis. June. Emmeline Pankhurst: A Biographical Interpretation, Women’s History Review, Volume 12, No. 1, 2003, pg. 78-85 Rosen. Andrew, Rise Up! Women, Routledge and Paul, (1974). Pg. 50-235 Read More