Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
Lilian Lenton, the 'Elusive Pimpernel': the courageous and daring suffragette who took direct action
Some suffragettes marched with banners, or printed and distributed propaganda pamphlets. Others took more direct action. Diane Atkinson tells the story of one activist who employed arson to spark awareness of the burning issue of women’s suffrage
Recalling her career as a suffragette arsonist and Houdini-like escapologist in interviews later in her life, Lilian Lenton lit up as if a fire had been started in her heart. “To say I enjoyed making fires sounds rather awful,” she later admitted. “But it really was lovely to find that you’d been successful – that the thing really had burned down and that you hadn’t got caught. There it was blazing, and there we were in the glare of the lights…” Listen | Deeds Not Words: the suffragette story Lilian Ida Lenton was one of the youngest, yet most militant, of suffragettes in the three years leading up to the outbreak of the First World War. Her career was daring, dangerous and dramatic, reported in newspapers around the country. The new half-penny dailies, with their half-tone photographs and full spreads, often featured her pyrotechnic activities. Lilian was 5ft 2ins tall in her stockinged feet, with brown hair and eyes – a “tiny, china-like figure, but wiry and… wily”. She soon gained a romantic nickname, ‘The Elusive Pimpernel’, for her effective disguises and her ability to elude the policemen and detectives who guarded the places where she was kept under house arrest while released from prison on licence. With her tiny stature, she easily passed as a child, a delivery boy or a little old lady. Becoming a suffragette Born in Leicester in 1891, Lilian was the eldest of the five children of Isaac, a carpenter and joiner, and Mahalah, who had worked in a hosiery factory before her marriage. Lilian trained as a dancer, but was then inspired by hearing Emmeline Pankhurst speak about women’s suffrage. As soon as she was “21 and my own boss”, she joined the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). Lilian was first arrested on 4 March 1912, one of about 200 detained during a campaign of window-smashing. Frustrated at the government’s refusal to give women the vote, and outraged at the force-feeding of suffragettes in prison, activists shattered hundreds of windows in Whitehall and the West End of London. Emmeline Pankhurst called these raids the “argument of the broken pane”. Read more | 8 famous suffragettes and votes for women campaigners Under the alias Ida Inkley, Lilian was sentenced to two months in Holloway Prison for smashing the windows of the Oxford Street Post Office. The sentencing magistrate commented that “only very ill-regulated minds could conceive of such ideas”. Lilian was rarely out of the news in 1913. Telling WSPU headquarters that she wanted to progress from breaking windows, she declared that her mission was to burn down two empty buildings each week. At three o’clock on the morning of 20 February, she and a comrade, artist Olive Wharry, set fire to the tea pavilion at Kew Gardens – which was reduced to a heap of ashes. They left postcards at the scene from “Two voteless women”, offering “Peace on earth and goodwill when women get the vote”, then ran off – but dropped two suitcases containing a hammer and their combustible materials. Behind bars and forcible feeding Lilian and Olive were rapidly apprehended by two policemen, denied bail and taken to Holloway Prison. Lilian refused to be medically examined or to “give any particulars”. She was moved to a special cell after she “smashed up everything in the cell she was first placed in”, and was kept apart from all other suffragette prisoners. She was well aware of the fate that would likely befall her. “When I went to prison for fires, I knew the sentences would go into years,” Lilian later recalled during an interview with the BBC. “So I went on hunger strike for release, on the grounds they had no right to imprison women for breaking man-made laws. The forcible feeding process was extremely unpleasant. But some people managed to put up with it literally for months – which meant hundreds of times.” On 23 February 1913, it happened to Lilian. “They pushed a tube up the nostril, which went wriggling down into the stomach,” she later recalled. “Then they poured the food in through the funnel at the end of the tube. But I was determined to stop them if I could. “All the time they were trying to push this tube down, I kept coughing and coughing incessantly. They kept on trying, and after a bit I suppose they thought they’d succeeded, because they poured the food in… In almost no time I felt intense pain all round my chest and I could not breathe.” Read more | What was the difference between the suffragists and the suffragettes? Food had been forced into Lilian’s lungs, and she soon developed double pneumonia and pleurisy as a result. She was released from Holloway’s hospital wing and taken to the home of suffragette friends in north London, where she was kept under house arrest. One day, a laundry van arrived at the house. The driver was a female friend in disguise, and the laundry basket carried out was suspiciously heavy – because the extra weight was Lilian. She was whisked away, “leaving a squad of lynx-eyed detectives industriously watching an empty nest”. The Cat and Mouse Act Stories of women being force-fed created adverse publicity for the Liberal government, and in April 1913 the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act was passed. Under its terms, hunger-striking suffragettes would not be fed by force; instead, they were released when their weight dropped dangerously low, and were served with a licence specifying that they should remain at a pre-agreed address. If they then regained weight, they would be returned to prison. Read more | What was the Cat and Mouse Act? The reason why suffragettes were force-fed The suffragettes likened it to a game of cat and mouse, and the act failed spectacularly. Very few ‘mice’ were ever recaptured; instead, most went on the run and committed more militant acts. Force-feeding was reintroduced in the autumn of 1913. Master of disguise After evading authorities earlier that year, Lenton laid low until June, when ‘May Dennis’ (another alias) was found by a local reporter in a burning building in Doncaster. She managed to escape, but gave herself up when she read that a servant had been charged with arson. Lilian was sentenced to six months in Armley Gaol (now HM Prison Leeds); again she went on hunger strike, but this time was not force-fed. She was released on licence after seven days to the home of local suffragette sympathisers, effectively under house arrest. Though under close observation, Lilian escaped from under the noses of the police keeping watch on the house, this time disguised as a delivery boy carrying a hamper. Read more | From china cups to letter bombs: how suffragettes got out the message of votes for women She spent the rest of the summer dressed as a boy, on the run between Harrogate and Dundee, evading the Special Branch and other police officers who were hunting for her. She then disguised herself as an old lady, hobbling through Cardiff to escape by train to London. From there she travelled to Dover, where she boarded a yacht owned by a suffragette sympathiser and fled to France. Returning to England, during the autumn of 1913 and spring of 1914 Lilian was hugely active. She continued to burn empty buildings and, when arrested, went on three hunger-and-thirst-strikes; each time she was released and then evaded police. A life dedicated to fighting for women's rights When the First World War began in August 1914, the government granted an amnesty to all suffragette prisoners on the understanding that their militancy would end. Lilian diverted her energies to other important work, first as an orderly for Dr Elsie Inglis’s Scottish Women’s Hospital Unit in Serbia; she received a medal from the French Red Cross for her efforts. Read more | Sisters in arms: women at war during WW1 After the war she took a role at the British embassy in Stockholm, and went to Russia with the Save the Children Fund, which had been founded in 1919. She also worked as the financial secretary of the National Union of Women Teachers and, in her final years, was the honorary treasurer of the Suffragette Fellowship, founded in 1926 to keep alive the memory of the militant campaign. The earliest surviving photographs of Lilian show her lying in bed in prison, recovering from force-feeding; there are also surveillance images taken by Special Branch officers. The last known picture of her was taken in 1970 at the unveiling of the Suffragette Memorial in London’s Christchurch Gardens near Caxton Hall, which had been the venue of the ‘Women’s Parliament’ held in 1907. She had led the fundraising for the memorial. Lilian Lenton died in 1972, after 60 years of activism dedicated to improving the lives of women. Diane Atkinson is a historian and author of Rise Up, Women! The Remarkable Lives of the Suffragettes (Bloomsbury, 2018) This article was first published in the January 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
From china cups to letter bombs: how suffragettes got out the message of votes for women
The suffragettes crafted a brilliant PR campaign, driven by everything from branded marmalade to marching bands. But did their quest for publicity eventually backfire? Ellie Cawthorne investigates an Edwardian battle for hearts and minds
Whining kittens, cackling geese, wizened crones, toothless old bags: the portrayals of activists on anti-suffrage postcards circulating at the beginning of the 20th century are brutally unflattering. “Suffragettes were often portrayed as desiccated spinsters who’d never been kissed, and whose sexual frustration made them bitter and twisted and led them to attack society,” says historian Diane Atkinson. “They were shown as careless, selfish women who abandoned their families and responsibilities in pursuit of politics.” One postcard shows a bawling baby in the middle of an almighty tantrum. The caption underneath reads: “Mummy’s a Suffragette.” As Atkinson explains, such images transmitted a clear message to anyone who saw them: “Suffragettes were bad mothers. They were bad wives. They were bad people.” Before they could convert anyone to their cause – in short, ‘votes for women’ – the suffragettes had to convince the public that they were not bitter old crones or shrieking banshees. What they needed was a rebrand – and, as we explore in our new podcast series, Deeds not Words, the campaigning suffragettes were masters at getting their message out there. Whether through headline-grabbing stunts, creating a dynamic and memorable public image for their movement, or even their pitch-perfect merchandise campaign, the suffragettes knew how to make a statement. Deeds Not Words: the suffragette story Find out more about the dramatic story of the suffragette campaign over six episodes Listen on the podcast Building ‘brand suffragette’ As those sneering postcards demonstrate, the suffragettes’ fight to reclaim their public image would be an uphill battle. However, according to historian Fern Riddell, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) – the organisation at the heart of the movement – was “absolutely fantastic at running a PR campaign”. She adds: “Advertising and mass media had really started to emerge in the 19th century, and the suffragettes were quick to capitalise on the fact that we’re very visual creatures. They understood that if you give people something exciting to look at, they’re going to remember it.” In this creation of ‘brand suffragette’ they “were able to draw on a vast pool of expertise”, says Atkinson. “Women who were great artists, designers, embroiderers and actresses all contributed their talents to help create a campaign that was very modern and ‘sexy’ for the time.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/07/GettyImages-1047680542-304060c-e1721909196393.jpg" width="620" height="394" alt="Anti-suffragette postcards, such as this 1900 example, portrayed campaigners as “desiccated spinsters… whose sexual frustration made them bitter and twisted”, says historian Diane Atkinson (Photo by Ken Florey Suffrage Collection/Gado/Getty Images)" title="Anti-suffragette postcards, such as this 1900 example, portrayed campaigners as “desiccated spinsters… whose sexual frustration made them bitter and twisted”, says historian Diane Atkinson (Photo by Ken Florey Suffrage Collection/Gado/Getty Images)" /> One such woman was Emmeline Pethick Lawrence, the WSPU’s multi-talented treasurer, who in 1908 invented a colour scheme for the campaign. Each hue held a specific symbolic meaning: green for hope, white for purity in private and public life, purple for freedom and dignity. It was a memorably unusual combination, instantly recognisable – and Pethick Lawrence was quick to recognise its potential. In her role as co-editor of the WSPU’s magazine Votes for Women, she explicitly encouraged members to adopt the colours at upcoming marches. “The effect will be very much lost unless the colours are carried out in the dress of every woman in the ranks,” she wrote. “You may think that this is a small and trivial matter but there is no service that can be considered as small or trivial in this movement… If every individual in this union would do her part, the colours would become the reigning fashion. And strange as it may seem, nothing would so help to popularise the WSPU.” WSPU logo: Angel of Freedom As well as clothes and banners, Pethick Lawrence’s colour scheme was adopted across a wide range of WSPU logos. Many of these were designed by Sylvia Pankhurst, daughter of the movement’s firebrand figurehead, Emmeline. Sylvia, who had studied at the Royal College of Art, used her artistic talents to create a striking visual identity for the campaign – most notably with her trumpeting ‘Angel of Freedom’ motif. Her designs set the template for the kind of imagery that the movement deployed to represent itself – impassioned yet dignified, youthful, self-assured, progressive and dynamic. Read more | Your guide to the Pankhursts, the pioneering family who fought for Votes for Women The final puzzle piece of ‘brand suffragette’ came from Emmeline, who came up with the slogan ‘deeds not words’. Here was a clear and catchy motto that could be shouted in the streets – a punchy tagline that would stick in people’s minds and let them know that these women meant business. “It’s this innovative use of colour and logos that really made the WSPU stand out,” says Atkinson. “I can’t think of any other political organisation that has marketed a campaign as well.” Once this strong brand identity had been established, it was not only weaponised in the suffragettes’ marketing materials but also emblazoned across a variety of merchandise. Pethick-Lawrence was keenly aware of the need to top up the campaign’s war chest, and selling merchandise offered a powerful way to spread the WSPU’s message while simultaneously bringing in funds. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/07/P80WX0-c027f96-e1721909122540.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="Women’s Social and Political Union offices incorporated shops – here is the Putney and Fulham branch – selling branded products (Photo by History and Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo)" title="Women’s Social and Political Union offices incorporated shops – here is the Putney and Fulham branch – selling branded products (Photo by History and Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo)" /> In May 1909, a two-week Women’s Exhibition was held in Knightsbridge, with around 50 stalls for curious visitors to peruse. Alongside a palmistry stand, home-made butterscotch, a mock polling booth and a replica Holloway Prison cell, all manner of branded and colour-coded merchandise was on offer – sales of which contributed substantially to the £5,664 of campaign funds raised. As the campaign progressed, suffragette shops popped up across the country, many attached to local branches of the WSPU. London alone had 19 WSPU shops, offering desirable items to purchase in person or via mail order. From handkerchiefs and stationery to tote bags and small enamel badges bearing popular slogans, there was some thing for all budgets. Working women with minimal disposable income could buy ‘votes for women’ marmalade, chocolate and cigarettes, or glass bead necklaces in purple, white and green. Those with more cash to splash were offered high-end jewellery studded with genuine diamonds and amethysts, or bicycles with chainguards sporting suffragette logos. One of the most popular items was a delicate 13-piece bone china tea set, each cup and saucer bearing Sylvia Pankhurst’s ‘Angel of Freedom’ motif. Read more | 8 famous suffragettes and votes for women campaigners Several board games were also produced, from Pank-A-Squith – a play on the names of Emmeline Pankhurst and Prime Minister Herbert Asquith (a leading opponent of women’s suffrage) – to the somewhat less opaque Suffragettes In and Out of Prison. The game Suffragetto – of which there is now only one known surviving copy – saw one player controlling police constables while their opponent became the wily suffragettes trying to slink past their defences. With products such as tea sets and board games, the suffragettes were sneaking their message directly into homes across Britain. But in order for their campaign to achieve tangible results, they needed to shout that message from the rooftops and see it splashed across the nation’s streets. Suffragette marches: spectacle and pageantry That’s where marching came in. Photographs of suffragette marches taken by Christina Broom capture their forthright spirit and infectious energy, with hand-embroidered banners fluttering in the wind, and marshals on horseback leading a sea of marching women. It’s clear from these images that the suffragettes understood the power of spectacle. As WSPU leader Annie Kenney reflected: “Pageantry played a big part in popularising the movement.” These events were great opportunities to reach potential supporters who were not already sympathetic to the cause. Flyers and suffragette literature would be handed out to onlookers, while catchy popular songs of the time were adapted with suffragette lyrics and accompanied by marching bands. Read more | What was the difference between the suffragists and the suffragettes? “Processions were very important when it came to the suffragettes’ image, because they showed the public who these women really were,” says Atkinson. “That was quite a good reality check, because they weren’t the harridans or freaks of nature that those ridiculous postcards portrayed.” Such marches made an impression in even the most unlikely quarters. “I am sure a great many people never realised how young and dainty and elegant and charming most of the leaders of the movement are,” a surprised Daily Mail reporter admitted in 1908 after one such public event. “And how well they spoke – with what free and graceful gesture; never at a loss for a word or an apt reply to an interruption; calm and collected; forcible, yet so far as I heard, not violent; earnest, but happily humorous as well.” Marches were not the only tactics deployed by the suffragettes to seize public attention. In 1909, Muriel Matters from the Women’s Freedom League decorated a dirigible balloon with the words ‘Votes for Women’ and flew it over London, tossing down a cascade of pro-suffragette pamphlets to the crowds. And in 1913, Ethel Spark and Gertrude Shaw slipped past the guards at the Monument to run a suffragette banner up the flagpole. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/07/GettyImages-3437199-a9559cc-e1721909294918.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="Princess Sophia Duleep Singh (shown centre, in 1916) lent celebrity status to the suffragette cause (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" title="Princess Sophia Duleep Singh (shown centre, in 1916) lent celebrity status to the suffragette cause (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" /> One figure who helped to stir up press interest in women’s suffrage was aristocratic it-girl turned suffragette Princess Sophia Duleep Singh. As a god-daughter of Queen Victoria, Duleep Singh was well aware of the attention her celebrity status could bring to the cause. So she sold copies of The Suffragette newspaper outside her home at Hampton Court Palace, and accosted politicians while wearing a sumptuous fur coat. In one head line-grabbing caper in 1911, bailiffs impounded a seven-stone diamond ring against arrears in rates payments. Comrades from the Women’s Tax Resistance League launched a highly publicised protest at the subsequent auction, outbidding the competition to buy back the ring for Sophia. Read more | Anita Anand on Sophia Duleep Singh: goddaughter of Queen Victoria and prominent campaigner for women’s rights Stunts often targeted politicians. Suffragettes leapt out at ministers on golf courses, or swapped the flags on greens for others in suffragette colours. In Bristol in 1909, Theresa Garnett shocked reporters when she accosted Winston Churchill with a dog whip at Temple Meads train station. The Manchester Guardian lapped up the dramatic story, reporting on the episode as “a very exciting moment”, while the Manchester Evening News even commissioned an illustration to bring the incident to life for readers. Suffragette militancy But as the campaign dragged on, with little sign of political opposition thawing and increased hostility from police and prison officers, suffragette militancy increased. And as the movement became more extreme, so too did the nature of these public actions, escalating from harmless but headline-grabbing stunts to far more extreme acts. Letter bombs were sent to the chancellor of the exchequer, David Lloyd George, and explosives were planted in cricket grounds, Westminster Abbey and the London Underground. And in June 1913, Emily Davison died after being struck by King George V’s horse as it raced in the Derby – surely the most famous of all suffragette actions. While the headlines and column inches kept coming, the tenor of the reporting became more hostile to the suffragettes. Any reluctant admiration such as that shown by the Daily Mail back in 1908 evaporated, with newspapers instead declaring themselves appalled by so-called ‘suffragette outrages’. The old adage ‘any publicity is good publicity’ began to ring increasingly hollow. Read more | Jujitsu suffragettes: how women fought for the vote with an ancient martial art In Riddell’s view, the escalating militant action was a potential public relations disaster for the suffragettes. “It’s very easy to get distracted by the PR movement, which is one of the reasons why [the suffragettes’ campaign] was so successful,” she says. “But the shock and horror that women would bomb MPs’ houses – and lay claim to those bombings – absolutely blew the minds of the British public. It certainly made people far less likely to support the suffragettes, so it was incredibly damaging to the success of the movement as a whole.” Riddell argues that the suffragettes were in many ways rescued from this unfolding reputational nosedive by the outbreak of the First World War. By inspiring an immediate cessation of suffragette actions, it prevented the protesters from heading further down a path that would have fuelled yet more hostility to their cause. “It tells us an awful lot about how political activism works,” says Riddell. “The lesson campaigners need to learn from the suffragettes is that if you target ordinary people’s lives and put them at risk, your movement will suffer instantly.” Yet, a century on, protesters are still drawing from the suffragette playbook. “I think the suffragette spirit is alive and kicking among lots of protest movements today,” says Atkinson. “I’m not sure anybody’s done it as well as them, but they have certainly provided a great example for activists and interest groups in the decades since.” Perhaps the best-known example of a modern campaign group borrowing from the suffragette playbook occurred in November 2023, when two members of the climate activism group Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery and launched a volley of blows at Diego Velázquez’s ‘The Rokeby Venus’. The precedent for this attack was clear. Back in 1914, the suffragette Mary Richardson had sparked nationwide outrage by slashing the ‘Venus’ with a meat cleaver. And, just in case anyone was in any doubt about the inspiration for the climate protesters’ attack, they later declared that: “It is time for deeds not words.” The suffragettes’ campaign to win the vote may have been at its zenith over a century ago, but their power to make a statement clearly still resonates today. This article was first published in the September 2024 issue of BBC History Magazine
Your guide to the Pankhursts, the pioneering family who fought for Votes for Women
One family, led by Emmeline Pankhurst, would lead the charge towards equality and votes for women. Find out more about the accomplishments of the founder and leader of the WSPU, and her pioneering daughters
Who was Emmeline Pankhurst? Emmeline Goulden was born in 1858 to parents who fiercely supported reform and activism. She accompanied her mother to suffrage meetings and her grandfather had witnessed the Peterloo Massacre of 1819. Emmeline attended schools in both Manchester and Paris and soon noticed the stark differences between her education and that of her brothers – they studied business, the sciences and mathematics, while she was taught how to cook and look after the home. This would light a fire within her; a burning desire to one day see women treated as equal to men. Emmeline married likeminded lawyer Dr Richard Pankhurst in 1879 – he was a radical and a supporter of women’s rights, free speech and educational reform. Together they had five children: Christabel, Sylvia, Adela, Henry Francis Robert (Frank) and Henry Francis (Harry). The younger brother was named after the elder, who died of diphtheria at the age of four. The Pankhursts moved from Manchester to London in 1886, and it was while there that Emmeline became interested in the experiences of working-class women. She followed with great interest the Match Girls’ strike of 1888. Girls and women worked up to 14 hours a day in match factories for low pay, suffered ill health caused by the chemicals they used, and were threatened with fines for talking or going to the toilet without permission. More than a thousand women walked out on a strike that lasted for three weeks – the protest was one of several that inspired Emmeline. By 1889, Emmeline had helped to form the Women’s Franchise League in London – its main goal was to secure married women’s right to vote in local elections. The Pankhursts returned to Manchester in 1893 and it was then that Emmeline began establishing herself as an activist. Deeds not Words: the suffragette story Member exclusive | With their radical demands for votes for women, the suffragettes shook up Edwardian Britain. Their campaign for equal rights would see them not just rallying crowds with speeches and marching on the streets, but setting fire to politicians’ homes and planting bombs in public places. Find out more in our podcast series: Deeds Not Words. Listen to all episodes now When did Emmeline Pankhurst set up the WSPU? She set up the WSPU, the Women’s Social and Political Union, (often called the suffragettes) in 1903 with her daughters Christabel and Sylvia, and from 1908 they were using militant tactics to garner support and attention. Emmeline was imprisoned several times, including for the charges of striking a police officer, damaging property and conspiracy to incite violence; she undertook hunger strikes to improve conditions in prison for herself and others. When World War I began, Emmeline put her support behind the war effort, organising rallies and encouraging the government to allow women to enter the workforce, taking the places of the men who had gone to fight. The more violent actions against the government by the WSPU were halted in favour of the war effort. Read more | Sisters in arms: women at war during WW1 A devoted anti-communist, Emmeline joined the Conservative Party in 1926 and was chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate. She died in June 1928 – just a few weeks before all women gained the same voting rights as men. Did you know? In 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst starred in a silent movie alongside American activist Harriot Stanton Blatch. What 80 Million Want saw the protagonist foil would-be assassins and take down corrupt politicians while fighting for women’s suffrage. Who was Christabel Pankhurst? The eldest daughter of Emmeline and Richard Pankhurst, Christabel was born in 1880. She was educated in Southport and Manchester and briefly lived in Geneva, but returned home with Emmeline after Richard died in 1898. She had a particularly close relationship with her mother, and played a key role in founding the WSPU. After relatively peaceful beginnings, the WSPU evolved into a militant movement and gained national attention when, in 1905, Christabel and fellow WSPU member Annie Kenney disrupted a Liberal Party meeting in Manchester. The following year, Christabel became the WSPU’s ‘chief organiser’ and used her skills as a law graduate to deliver informed and impassioned speeches and arguments – even though, as a woman, she wasn’t allowed to practise as a lawyer. In March 1912, a warrant was issued for Christabel’s arrest on a charge of conspiracy to commit damage. She went on the run and escaped to France, where she remained until the outbreak of World War I, continuing to manage the WSPU and edit its newspaper from overseas. In September 1914, Christabel returned to London and threw herself into the war effort, encouraging women to engage in war work as a way to win their enfranchisement. In the 1918 general election, Christabel stood as a candidate for the Women’s Party but narrowly missed her chance of becoming an MP by 775 votes. She left England for the US in 1921 and there became heavily involved with the Second Adventist movement – a Protestant denomination that believed in the imminent Second Coming of Christ – and adopted a daughter, Betty. After returning to the UK in the 1930s, she left for the US again in 1940 where she remained until her death. Made DBE (Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) in 1936, Christabel died in California in 1958, aged 77. Who was Sylvia Pankhurst? Born in 1882, Emmeline and Richard’s second daughter was also active in the WSPU. A graduate of the Royal College of Art, Sylvia created the WSPU’s distinctive ‘look’ and was imprisoned numerous times for her suffrage activities. Notably, she also spearheaded the WSPU’s campaigns in East London, witnessing the dire poverty of women in the local slums. Eventually, Sylvia’s views on militant action began to diverge from those of her mother and sister Christabel, and she founded the East London Federation of Suffragettes – initially part of the WSPU. When Britain went to war in 1914 – a conflict she vehemently opposed – she set up several mother and baby clinics in the capital to offer support as supplies ran short. A passionate left-winger, Sylvia went on to host the inaugural meeting of the British Communist Party in 1920. In 1927, aged 45, she gave birth to a son but refused to name or marry his father. Her refusal saw Emmeline break ties with her daughter and the pair never spoke again. Sylvia continued to rally against fascism and colonialism, moving to Ethiopia to continue her activism. She died there in 1960. Who was Adela Pankhurst? The youngest Pankhurst daughter, Adela (b1885), shared her family’s views regarding women’s rights but, like her sister Sylvia, disagreed with the violence advocated by the WSPU. After becoming estranged from the rest of the Pankhursts – her socialist and pacifist beliefs were deemed a ‘risk’ to the WSPU’s success – she was given a one-way ticket to Australia by her mother, along with £20 and a bundle of clothes. She would never see her mother or sisters again. In Australia, Adela married trade unionist Tom Walsh and together they founded the Australian Communist Party. Later, however, she moved away from communism and abandoned left-wing politics altogether. In the late 1920s, she formed the Women’s Guild of Empire – a Christian group against communism that sought to preserve Australia’s place within the British empire. After spending a portion of World War II in prison for supporting the Japanese, she died in Sydney in 1961. This article was first published in BBC History Revealed
What was the Cat and Mouse Act? The reason why suffragettes were force-fed
June Purvis considers the power of the hunger strike and the importance of this radical form of protest to the suffragettes' political arsenal
“They fed me five weeks by the nose and at the end of that time my nose what they called ‘bit’ the tube, and it would not pass into the throat even though they bent it and twisted it into all kinds of shapes. Instead, it went up to the top of my nose and seemed to pierce my eyes… Then they forced my mouth open by inserting their fingers and cutting my gums… and the lining of my cheeks… when I was blind and mad with pain they drove in two large gags. Then the tubes followed and they pressed my tongue down with their fingers and pinched my nose to weaken the natural, and also the purposeful, resistance of my throat.” This was how imprisoned suffragette Mary Richardson described one of the many times she was forcibly fed in 1914, after going on hunger strike. Her fate was that of many members of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), founded by Emmeline Pankhurst in October 1903 to campaign for the parliamentary vote for women in Britain. The WSPU, with its slogan ‘Deeds, not words’, became the most notorious of the women’s suffrage groupings, some one thousand of its members being imprisoned from 1905 to the outbreak of the First World War, in August 1914. A women-only organisation, the WSPU sought not just to end the discrimination that barred all females from their democratic right to elect a government but also to press for wider social reforms that would bring equality within the law, education and employment. Read more | How the battle for female suffrage in Britain was won Prior to the general election of 1906, which the Liberals were expected to win, the suffragettes engaged in non-violent actions to press their cause – such as assertive questioning of leading members of the Liberal Party and deputations to parliament. When a Liberal government was returned and Herbert Asquith, a renowned opponent of women’s suffrage, became prime minister in 1908, the fight for women’s enfranchisement became much harder. Banned from Liberal Party meetings, the suffragettes, from 1912, engaged in secret attacks on public and private property – including vandalising letter boxes, firing empty buildings and smashing shop windows in London’s West End – as a tactic to force the government to yield to their demand. Deeds not Words: the suffragette story Member exclusive | With their radical demands for votes for women, the suffragettes shook up Edwardian Britain. But their campaign for equal rights would see them not just rallying crowds with speeches and marching on the streets, but setting fire to politicians’ homes and planting bombs in public places. Find out more about the dramatic story of the suffragette campaign in our podcast series: Deeds Not Words. Listen to all episodes now Throughout, the aim was never to endanger human life. As Emmeline Pankhurst said on 17 October 1912, “[T]he only recklessness the militant Suffragists have shown about human life has been of their own lives, not of the lives of others; and I say here and now that it has never been, and never will be the policy of the Women’s Social and Political Union to recklessly endanger human life”. Although dramatic stories of window-smashing suffragettes have passed into history, it is the haunting picture of the forcibly fed suffragette, alone in her prison cell, that has become the definitive image of the suffragette campaign. Read more | What was life like for women in Edwardian Britain? How did the suffragettes use hunger strikes as a political tool? The hunger strike as a political tool was introduced not by the WSPU leadership but by a member of the rank-and-file. On 5 July 1909, Marion Wallace Dunlop, a sculptor and illustrator, sent to Holloway prison for printing an extract from the Bill of Rights on the wall of St Stephen’s Hall in the House of Commons, went on hunger strike. She was protesting against the refusal of the authorities to recognise her as a political offender and, as such, entitled to be placed in the First Division where political prisoners enjoyed considerable privileges. After 91 hours of fasting, she was released. Believing they had found a powerful weapon with which to fight an obdurate Liberal government, other imprisoned suffragettes began hunger striking too. The government responded by forcibly feeding them, arguing that this “ordinary hospital treatment” was necessary to preserve the women’s lives. So began a vicious circle of events that was to shape the representation of the suffragette movement for years to come. The image of the individual suffragette, voluntarily on hunger strike in her isolated prison cell, had a particular cultural resonance since she appropriated a form of protest that had been adopted by some, mainly male, dissidents in the past – and made it her own. Wishing to retain control of her own body, which had often been bruised and battered in various deputations, she used it as a political statement to contest an all-male government’s refusal to allow her to enter the realm of politics. The hunger strike was a means of passive resistance to the injustices that women experienced, because of their sex. Why were some suffragettes force-fed? Forcible feeding as carried out on the hunger strikers was a brutal, life-threatening and degrading procedure, undertaken by male doctors on struggling female bodies. Although the word ‘rape’ was not used by the prisoners to describe their experiences, the instrumental invasion of the body, accompanied by overpowering physical force, suffering and humiliation was akin to it and commonly described as an ‘outrage’. That rubber tubes were not always new and might be dirty inside through having been previously used on those who were diseased or mentally ill, added to the feelings of violation that the suffragettes expressed. Read more | A brief history of International Women's Day: what is it and why do we celebrate it? One of the earliest women to be forcibly fed in September 1909 was working class Mary Leigh, in Winson Green gaol, Birmingham. Feeding by nasal tube was “an outrage”, she wrote in an influential pamphlet that was widely circulated. “The sensation is most painful – the drums of the ear seem to be bursting, a horrible pain in the throat and the breast. The tube is pushed down 20 inches… I resist and am overcome by weight of numbers.” The shocked and indignant WSPU leadership soon commissioned a well-publicised poster titled “Torturing women in prison”, which depicted the operation in gruesome detail. It was commonly believed by the WSPU that working class prisoners were treated less favourably than their well-known middle class counterparts. Lady Constance Lytton, on hunger strike in Newcastle prison that autumn of 1909, was not forcibly fed but released after just two days, officially because of her weak heart. Believing she had received preferential treatment because of her family background and political connections, she set about proving the point. Assuming the guise of ‘Jane Warton’, a working woman, she rejoined the WSPU under her new name. Arrested outside Walton gaol, Liverpool, Jane Warton was sent to prison and forcibly fed eight times. Read more | 8 famous suffragettes and votes for women campaigners “The pain of it was intense”, wrote Lady Constance. The doctor turned the steel gag in her mouth “much more than necessary until my jaws were fastened wide apart, far more than they could go naturally. Then he put down my throat a tube which seemed to me much too wide and was something like four feet in length… I choked the moment it touched my throat until it had got down. Then the food was poured in quickly; it made me sick a few seconds after it was down and the action of the sickness made my body and legs double up, but the wardresses instantly pressed back my head and the doctor leant on my knees. The horror of it was more than I can describe.” Once her true identity was known, Lady Constance was hastily released. Although she had proved her point about the differential prison treatment for women from differing social backgrounds, she never fully recovered from her ordeal. Yet for Lady Constance, as for many others who were forcibly fed, the spirit soared over the inhumane treatment. Men might insist upon controlling women’s bodies, but physical force could never triumph because their cause was just. The point was underlined by the WSPU leadership who presented hunger strikers with commemorative medals “For Valour” in pursuing “to the last extremity of hunger and hardship a great principle of political justice”. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/01/0507428FORCEFEEDING_sml-8db576f-e1682411874582.jpg" width="618" height="413" alt="Suffragette, Lady Constance Lytton wearing a prison number badge and hunger strike medal, c1912. Lytton became involved with the women's suffrage movement in her late thirties, and was first arrested for joining a protest demonstration in February 1909. Having been sentenced to four weeks in Holloway, she was confined to the prison hospital with an alleged heart condition, but soon suspected that she was being given preferential treatment because of her social rank. Her treatment in Newcastle prison following a second arrest in October of the same year confirmed her suspicions: after a 56-hour hunger strike she was not forcibly fed, like other suffragettes, but examined by a heart specialist and allowed to go free. The following year, at a protest demonstration in Liverpool, Lytton disguised herself as a working-class woman and gave the false name of Jane Warton when she was arrested. This time she suffered the same treatment as the other suffragettes in prison. In 1912 she suffered a stroke and remained an invalid for the rest of her life. Suffragette, Lady Constance Lytton wearing a prison number Credit: Museum of London / HIP / TopFoto" title="0507428FORCEFEEDING_sml-8db576f" /> Apart from one week in November 1910, the WSPU suspended militant action for that year, until 21 November 1911, in order to allow the various Conciliation Bills for Women Suffrage to be presented to parliament. But political stalemate continued since the Liberals remained divided on the issue, as did the Tory opposition. Given the structure of party politics, the bills were doomed. A narrow bill, based on property qualification, would bring propertied women onto the electoral role and benefit the Tories; a wider one that included non-propertied women would bring in working class wage earners for the Liberals. Militant protest, such as window smashing of shops in London’s West End, returned with a vengeance in March 1912 as suffragettes felt betrayed by empty promises and party political manoeuvring. The vicious cycle of hunger striking and forcible feeding returned. Prison life was especially difficult for mothers with young children, like Myra Sadd Brown. Denied writing materials, she wrote with a blunted pencil on dark brown toilet paper a poignant message to them. “Mummy thanks you ever so much… for the letters – they were such a joy & I wanted to kiss them all over – but I am going to kiss all the writers when I see them & I don’t think there will be much left when I have finished.” What was the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913? The ordeal of forcible feeding became especially cruel and dangerous after the passing in April 1913 of the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’, which allowed a prisoner weakened through hunger striking to be released into the community on a license and nursed back to good health, only to be re-admitted once she was well enough to continue her sentence. Although the new act prolonged the experience, it was also a publicity gift to the WSPU since many ‘mice’ skillfully evaded re-arrest, dramatically appearing at a meeting. A widely circulated WSPU poster of a large ginger cat bearing his bloodied teeth – the limp, injured body of the small suffragette in his mouth – vividly portrayed the brutality of it all. The priority for the imprisoned suffragette now became to find a quicker way to be released, and so Zelie Emerson and Sylvia Pankhurst, Emmeline’s middle daughter, initiated a thirst and hunger strike, a form of protest soon adopted by others. By the end of December 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst herself, always in the thick of the action, had also added a sleep strike to her refusal to eat and drink water. She was released, in an emaciated condition, after just four days. While the authorities never dared forcibly feed her, for fear they might have a martyr on their hands, her daughter Sylvia did not fare so well. For Sylvia, the sense of degradation endured when being forcibly fed was worse than the pain of sore and bleeding gums, with bits of loose jagged flesh, or the agony of coughing up the tube three or four times before it was successfully inserted. Such harrowing personal accounts, published in the suffrage press, helped to strengthen the bond of comradeship and purpose among the WSPU membership. The forcibly fed suffragette knew she was not alone. The operation that had been intended to silence her became a platform from which she could speak about the injustices to her sex. Read more | Emily Davison: the suffragette martyr By 1914 the government’s response to hunger strikers had become more brutal, with stories emerging of imprisoned suffragettes being drugged to make them docile, as well as more tales of accidents when feeding by tube. Ethel Moorhead, in Calton prison, Edinburgh, developed double pneumonia after her eighth forcible feeding when some ‘foreign substance’ entered her lungs. Under such a repressive state policy, many of the women feared not only for their health but their sanity. Kitty Marion experienced such pain during the 232 times she was forcibly fed that she thought she was going mad and begged the doctor to give her some poison. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/01/50703970_10FORCEFEEDING_sml-a4dc621-e1682411904770.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Suffragette demonstration w. women carrying wands tipped with silver broad-arrows and banner From Prison to Citizenship, each of 617 arrows representing a conviction of a Suffragette. (Photo by Time Life Pictures/Mansell/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)" title="Suffragette demonstration w. women carry" /> The situation could not continue. Increasing numbers of doctors, as well as members of the general public, were speaking out against forcible feeding, saying it contravened the rules of medical practice and that those doctors performing the operation were punishing, rather than treating, their patients. Even The Times, well known for its anti-suffragism, was suggesting a review of policy. By mid-July 1914, a few women, such as Fanny Parker in Perth prison, were writing of how they were fed by the rectum and vagina. The outbreak of war the following month enabled both the WSPU and the authorities to retreat. Emmeline Pankhurst called a temporary suspension of militancy while the government granted an amnesty to all suffrage prisoners. Thus ended the most shameful episode in the history of the British women’s suffrage campaign. The hunger-striking suffragette laid bare the sexual divisions in Edwardian society, exposing a deep flaw in an all-male Liberal government that claimed to be ‘democratically’ elected yet tortured those women who challenged its legitimacy. Although partial enfranchisement for certain categories of women over the age of 30 was not granted until 1918, the forcibly fed suffragette had won the moral high ground. Through her courage and endurance, she had showed that physical force could never overcome the justice of her cause. In the battle for women’s equality, she had politicised her body in a way that those who came after her would never forget. What was it like to be force-fed? The abuse of women’s bodies The forcible feeding of hunger striking suffragette prisoners between 1909 and 1914 was an abuse of women’s bodies. The prisoner was usually held down on a bed by female wardresses or tied to a chair which wardresses then tipped back. Two male doctors carried out the operation, pouring a mixture of milk, bread and brandy through a rubber tube that was either forced up the nostril or pushed down the throat into the stomach. The latter was the more painful method since a steel gag was inserted into the mouth and screwed open as wide as possible. Tissue in the nose and throat was nearly always damaged while sometimes the tube was accidentally inserted into the windpipe, causing food to enter the lungs and endangering life. When forcible feeding of suffragettes began in 1909 there was widespread condemnation, not only from the WSPU leaders, but also from prominent public figures, such as George Bernard Shaw and the Labour MP, Keir Hardie. The Liberal government justified their action as ‘ordinary hospital treatment’ for those prisoners who refused food, a line supported by most newspaper editors. Henry Nevinson and Henry Brailsford, influential leader-writers for the Daily News, resigned in protest against their editor’s support for the policy. Although 116 doctors sent a memorial of protest to the prime minister Herbert Asquith, most medical practitioners failed to condemn the practice, due to their cosy relationship with the government and their anti-suffragism. The discredited procedure was finally stopped on the outbreak of the First World War. This article was first published in the June 2009 issue of BBC History Magazine
Suffragettes history facts: 10 things you might not know about the Votes for Women campaigners
Dr Jacqui Turner from the University of Reading reveals some lesser-known facts about the political movement
Passionate about women's rights, in 1903 the suffragettes of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) split from the suffragists of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) to follow the militant agenda 'deeds not words'. In the years that followed, these women took radical steps to force a change in the laws in Britain for women. But how much do we really know about the suffragettes? Read more | What was the difference between the suffragists and the suffragettes? 1. Women did not get the vote on the same terms as men in 1918 Many people assume that, as a direct result of women’s war work during the First World War, they were given the vote on equal terms to men. However, they were not. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 was primarily needed to resolve the issue of soldiers returning from service in the First World War who were not entitled to the vote, as they did not meet existing property qualifications. The 1918 act abolished almost all property qualifications for men over the age of 21 and gave the vote to women over 30 – but only if they met minimum property qualifications or were married to a man who did. Women could also vote as part of a university constituency if they were a university graduate. The age differential was to ensure that, following the loss of men in the war, women did not become the majority voters. After the act was passed, women made up 43 per cent of the electorate. Women were not given the vote on the same terms as men until a decade after the act was passed: on 2 July 1928, the Second Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Actwas passed into law. In a cruel twist of fate, Emmeline Pankhurst, leader of the militant WSPU, died on 14 June 1928, some 18 days before equal suffrage rights were granted. Deeds not Words: the suffragette story Member exclusive | The suffragettes' campaign for equal rights would see them not just rallying crowds with speeches and marching on the streets, but setting fire to politicians’ homes and planting bombs in public places. Find out more in our podcast series: Deeds Not Words. Listen to all episodes now 2. Suffragettes were accused of being ‘unladylike’ and ‘unnatural’ The bedrock of the anti-suffrage movement was an appeal to women’s femininity and the ‘natural order’. Suffragettes supposedly fell foul of the ‘norm’ and engaged in ‘unladylike’ and public activities. They were presented as women who had failed to reach the ultimate female goal in life of marriage and motherhood. They were depicted as bitter spinsters and caricatured as masculine, plain and ‘unnatural’. Their presence also apparently ‘feminized’ men, too. Read more | Anti-suffrage: the women who didn't want the vote The suffragette represented a figure outside of the order of society; they supposedly lacked ‘womanliness’; were seen to be sexually repressed; and were even against ‘God’s order’. 3. Not all suffragists were women The suffrage campaign and particularly militancy is almost always presented as a protest by women only. However, this is untrue, as many men were committed to the suffrage cause. Keir Hardie MP regularly raised questions in the House of Commons, and George Lansbury MP resigned his seat over the issue. Lansbury was also arrested at a suffrage rally in 1913 after speaking in support of the campaign of arson attacks. Even more closely involved with the movement was Frederick Pethwick-Lawrence. The WSPU did not admit male members, but Fred and his wife, Emmeline, became joint editors of the WSPU journal Votes for Women. Fred also represented the WSPU in legal matters, including trials, as women were not permitted to do so. Fred was imprisoned many times for his involvement with the movement. Like his wife and other suffragettes, Fred went on hunger strike and was forcibly fed (from 1909, women demanding the status of political prisoners began to refuse food, and the government’s response was to forcibly feed them). In his autobiography, Fate Has Been Kind (1943), he described how he was force-fed: “The head doctor, a most sensitive man, was visibly distressed by what he had to do. It certainly was an unpleasant and painful process and a sufficient number of warders had to be called in to prevent my moving while a rubber tube was pushed up my nostril and down into my throat and liquid was poured through it into my stomach. Twice a day thereafter one of the doctors fed me in this way. I was not allowed to leave my cell in the hospital and for the most part I had to stay in bed.” 4. Force-feeding was a serious problem The force-feeding of hunger-striking suffragettes was invasive, demeaning, and dangerous, and in some instances it damaged the long-term health of the victims. It should also be remembered that women were given disproportionately long sentences for minor offences such as protesting, resisting arrest, or smashing a window. The Cat and Mouse Act of 1913 attempted to address the issue, but instead created a vicious circle: women whose health was damaged were released from prison to recover, only to be returned to prison when they were fit again to finish their sentence. Professor June Purvis’s study of the letters, diaries and autobiographies written by prisoners [in particular Emmeline Pankhurst: A Biography (2003) and Votes For Women (1999)] indicate the horrors of force-feeding and the particularly harsh treatment of poor or working-class women. Purvis describes the experiences of Lady Constance Lytton, who disguised herself as a poor woman named Jane Warton in order to gather evidence of differential treatment. Warton was “held down by wardresses as the doctor inserted a four-foot-long tube down her throat. A few seconds after the tube was down, she vomitted all over her hair, her clothes and the wall, yet the task continued until all the liquid had been emptied into her stomach. As the doctor left ‘he gave me a slap on the cheek’, Constance recollected, ‘not violently, but, as it were, to express his contemptuous disapproval’.” Warton was forcibly fed seven more times before her true identity was revealed and she was released. Constance never fully recovered from her ordeal – she suffered a stroke in 1912 and died in 1923. Forcible feeding was humiliating, Purvis states, “especially so for women, such as Fanny Parker, fed through the rectum and vagina. The knowledge that new tubes were not always available and that used tubes may have been previously inflicted on diseased people undoubtedly added to the feelings of abuse, dirtiness and indecency that the women felt.” 5. No-one knows how many suffragettes there were The question of how many suffragettes there were is impossible to answer. Many women drifted in and out of the various movements due to personal circumstances, as well as political disagreements. Many suffragists and women in the Labour Movement often had other affiliations, including involvement with trade unions. Others held membership under pseudonyms or fictitious names to protect themselves and their families. Furthermore, the NUWSS and the WSPU were not the only suffrage organisations – there were many other national and local groups with varying longevity. Read more | 8 famous suffragettes and votes for women campaigners We can estimate the number of women who went to prison at somewhere more than 1,000, but many were imprisoned under public order offences and are not always easy to identify. Neither can we be certain how many went on hunger strike or were forcibly fed. What we can be certain of is that votes for women had mass support. Marches attracted vast numbers of militant and non-militant supporters, both male and female, from all walks of life. The Women’s Sunday Procession in June 1908 attracted more than 300,000 protesters carrying 700 banners through London. There were certainly more suffragist members of the NUWSS than militant members of the WSPU. By the outbreak of the First World War, the NUWSS had 50,000 members, but estimates on membership numbers for the WSPU vary massively from between 2,000 to 5,000. 6. Adela: the lost Pankhurst sister You are probably aware that Emmeline and her husband, Dr Richard Pankhurst, had two daughters who went on to become prominent suffragettes – Christabel (born in 1880) and Sylvia (born in 1882). But in fact they had five children – three daughters and two sons. Their first son, Frank, was born in 1884 but died of diphtheria in 1888. The Pankhursts’ other son, Henry Francis, was born in 1889. In-between was the ‘lost sister’ Adela, born in 1885. Like her sisters, Adela played an active role in the ‘Votes for Women’ campaign. She was imprisoned for her involvement and went on hunger strike, although she never supported what she perceived to be the “excesses of militancy”. Adela and her sister Sylvia left the WSPU in 1913. Sylvia became a socialist, and Adela was encouraged to emigrate to Australia after her mother gave her a ticket and £20. The rift within the family never healed. 7. There was more funding for the Suffragettes than for the Labour Party After the WSPU split from the NUWSS in 1903, the WSPU quickly became better-funded than the early Labour Party. In 1908, Labour Party subscriptions and donations were around £10,000, while by 1909 the WSPU had an annual income of £21,213 and growing. However, this was of little comfort to the poorer individuals involved in the moment. In her autobiography, Memories of a Militant (1924), Annie Kenny acknowledged: “I left the Movement, financially, as I joined it, penniless. Though I had no money I had reaped a rich harvest of joy, laughter, romance, companionship, and experience that no money can buy.” 8. Many suffragettes refused to complete the 1911 census in protest In addition to highly visible acts of civil disobedience, such as window smashing and setting fire to postboxes, many women also carried out quieter forms of civil protest. In 1911, the Women’s Freedom League launched a campaign to encourage women to refuse to complete the 1911 census, and in April that year a meeting was held in Trafalgar Square instructing women not to participate. The protesters followed the slogan: “I don’t count so I won’t be counted”. Some spoiled their papers with slogans such as “No persons here, only women!”; they gave their occupations as ‘suffragette’, and listed their ‘disenfranchisement’ in a column headed ‘Infirmity’. 9. Suffragettes used the Royal Albert Hall for rallies The Royal Albert Hall was regularly hired by both suffrage and anti-suffrage groups, including the National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage. There were also more than 20 suffragette meetings and rallies at the Royal Albert Hall between 1908 and 1918. The WSPU became the first group to be banned from the hall, because of costly disruption and damage. 10. Suffragettes ran for seats in parliament Lady Nancy Astor was the first woman to take her seat in parliament; her husband, Waldorf, was the sitting MP and (supported by him) she won his Sutton Plymouth seat at a by-election in 1919. Astor was not the first woman to stand for parliament or to be elected, however – this was Sinn Féin’s Constance Markievicz, who was elected at the general election of 1918 but did not take her seat. The 1918 general election had seen 17 female candidates, including Christabel Pankhurst, who stood for the Women’s Party in Smethwick. Despite the Conservative Party agreeing not to field a candidate, Christabel narrowly lost to the Labour Candidate by 775 votes. In 1919, suffragettes were dismayed that the first woman MP had played no role in the suffrage movement and had succeeded her husband. Initially Nancy Astor was unsupported by any faction of the movement – after all, she was upper class, elite, and an American! She soon won them round though, by making clear her commitment to women’s causes, supporting other female MPs, and by campaigning vigorously for the Equal Franchise in 1928. Dr Jacqui Turner is a lecturer in modern history at the University of Reading, and is the author of Battleaxes and Benchwarmers, Early female MPs 1919-1931 (2017)
8 famous suffragettes and votes for women campaigners
The Pankhursts and Millicent Fawcett were leading figures of the suffrage movement whose names are often invoked and remembered today. Here we take a closer look at eight other people who supported the campaign for women’s right to vote…
Lady Constance Lytton The aristocrat in disguise As the daughter of the Viceroy of India, Lady Constance Lytton (1869–1923) was born into a life of immense privilege. But her involvement in the women’s suffrage movement saw her swap palaces for prison cells. Lytton was converted to the cause after meeting suffragettes while campaigning for prison reform. Soon she was speaking across the country and petitioning her influential political connections on behalf of the Pankhursts. In 1909, Lytton was imprisoned in Holloway but was swiftly released when officers learned of her illustrious family background. In order to avoid similar special treatment on later arrests, Lytton adopted the alias Jane Warton, disguising herself as an “ugly London seamstress” during activities that might land her in prison, such as pelting MPs’ cars with stones. Lytton’s dedication to the cause ran so deep that she even attempted to carve the words ‘Votes for Women’ into her skin while in prison. However, after carving a letter ‘V’ over her heart, she was prevented from completing the job by prison doctors. In 1914, she published a book about her experiences of incarceration and force feeding, reflecting: “When the ghastly process was over, I tapped on the wall and called out... ‘No surrender’ and there came the answer past any doubt… ‘No surrender’.” Deeds not Words: the suffragette story Member exclusive | The suffragettes' campaign for equal rights would see them not just rallying crowds with speeches and marching on the streets, but setting fire to politicians’ homes and planting bombs in public places. Find out more in our podcast series: Deeds Not Words. Listen to all episodes now Sophia Duleep Singh The publicity-grabbing princess Princess Sophia Duleep Singh (1876–1948) didn’t fit the standard profile for a street-fighting political activist. Descended from Sikh royalty that had once ruled in northwest India, Sophia was a goddaughter of Queen Victoria and a fixture of the royal court. She spent her earlier years as a well-known socialite, preoccupied with parties, fashion and scandal. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/06/MHPH20-2368d4c-e1718266827444.jpg" width="618" height="412" alt="Sophia Duleep Singh" title="Princess Sophia Duleep Singh (1876 - 1948), daughter of Maharajah Duleep Singh and his first wife, Bamba Muller. She was a prominent suffragette and leader of the Women's Tax Resistance League. Pictured as a key figure in organising India Day, a day of th" /> But after a 1903 trip to India opened her eyes to racism and Indian nationalism, Sophia became increasingly politically minded. On her return to Britain, she turned her attention to women’s suffrage. Sophia’s fame put her in a unique position to generate publicity for the cause, with attention-grabbing antics such as refusing to pay taxes (since she couldn’t vote on how they were spent), spoiling census papers and selling suffragette newspapers outside Hampton Court Palace. She donated huge sums to the WSPU and was even embroiled in fights with police during the infamous ‘Black Friday’ march of 1910. Emily Wilding Davison The ultimate martyr Today, Emily Wilding Davison (1872–1913) being trampled by the king’s horse at the Epsom Derby in 1913 is probably the most famous incident in the suffrage campaign. Yet although Davison’s death secured her legacy as a martyr for the cause, it is debated as to whether she intended the fatal consequences of her actions. While Davison had spoken of the movement needing the “sacrifice of human life”, some believe her death was accidental and she was simply trying to interrupt the race. Either way, by the time of her death, the 40-year-old Londoner was an ardent supporter of votes for women, with years of activism under her belt. After joining the WSPU in 1906, Davison was arrested several times for activities including throwing stones, obstruction, smashing windows in the House of Commons and setting fire to a postbox. Five thousand women marched in her funeral procession. Lilian Lenton The daring escapee “Whenever I was out of prison my object was to burn two buildings a week,” Lilian Lenton (1891–1972) wrote of her time as a suffragette. “The object was to create an absolutely impossible condition of affairs… to prove it was impossible to govern without the consent of the governed.” Known as the “tiny, wily, elusive Pimpernel”, Lenton – who gave up a career as a dancer to join the suffragettes – spent much of 1912–13 leading the police on a wild goose chase. After being suspected of a Doncaster arson attack in 1913, she evaded the police disguised as an errand boy before jumping on a yacht and escaping to France. Lenton was also at the centre of a scandal over the treatment of suffragettes in prison, when it was made public that she had contracted pleurisy after being force-fed (due to food entering her lungs). The Home Secretary falsely denied Lenton’s ordeal, and serious embarrassment ensued when the truth was revealed. Despite her contributions, Lenton was too young to vote when the Representation of the People Act was passed in 1918. Annie Kenney The working-class hero Having experienced the struggles faced by working-class women in Edwardian Britain first-hand, Annie Kenney (1879–1953) saw the vote as a means of improving their lives. Hailing from Springhead, an area of Oldham, Kenney worked in a cotton mill from the age of 10. She and her sister Jessie became involved in the movement after witnessing a speech from Christabel Pankhurst. Kenney was an important recruiter and co-founded the first London branch of the WSPU, becoming one of the only working-class women in the WSPU’s leadership. Arrested 13 times in total, postcards of her were sold to adoring fans. Keir Hardie The political ally To most politicians, the suffragettes were objects of derision and even hatred. But they did have one key ally on the inside – Keir Hardie (1856–1915). The founder of the Labour Party saw suffrage as the key to improving the lives of working women and was a frequent speaker at rallies. Hardie spoke out in the House of Commons against the brutal treatment of suffragettes in prison, and even helped smuggle WSPU members into political meetings in order to cause mayhem. Although this gained Hardie many political enemies, he saw the suffrage question as one that transcended party divisions, writing in 1905: “To those who are opposed on principle to women having the vote at all I have little to say. These I find it easier to pity than to reason with…” Edith Rigby The eccentric doctor’s wife Even before she became a suffragette, Edith Rigby (1872–1950) was a woman who confounded society’s expectations. Married to a doctor in Preston, the unconventional Rigby raised eyebrows with her sandals, Turkish cigarettes, heavy amber necklaces and “extraordinary dresses that looked as if they were made of blue sacking”. She ruffled the feathers of her middle-class neighbours by arguing that servants should be treated as equals and even deigning to scrub her own doorstep. Keen to help those less well off, in 1899 Rigby opened a night school for working women. Edith’s neighbours’ disapproval turned to disgust when she became involved with the WSPU. She was an influential recruiter and actively engaged in militant activities, planting a bomb in Liverpool Corn Exchange and setting fire to a bungalow belonging to former MP William Lever. Like other WSPU members, Rigby was force-fed in prison, and received a hunger strike medal for her efforts. Read more | Were the suffragettes terrorists? Flora Drummond The commander of the troops Nicknamed ‘The General’, Flora Drummond (1878–1949) was often seen marshalling marches wearing a military-style uniform atop a horse. A working-class Scottish firebrand whom Emmeline Pankhurst hailed as “a woman of very great public spirit”, she was renowned for her public speaking and no-nonsense approach to silencing hecklers. Drummond was inspired to join the women’s suffrage movement after witnessing the poor working conditions of women in Manchester. She became a full-time organiser in 1906, teaching WSPU members Morse code to communicate between prison cells, and was arrested a total of nine times.
Emily Davison: the suffragette who stepped in front of the king's horse
In June 1913, suffragette Emily Davison was fatally injured after stepping in front of the king's horse during the Epsom Derby. Her death was a landmark event in British political history and became a milestone in the struggle for women's suffrage – but, asks June Purvis, was it an act of suicide?
On 4 June 1913, at the Epsom Derby, the suffragette Emily Wilding Davison was standing by the white rail near Tattenham Corner. A flag in the colours of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) was tied around her body. As a group of horses fast approached, Davison ducked under the railing and tried to grab the reins of King George V's horse, Anmer. With great force, Anmer knocked her over, rolled on his back, and kicked her furiously. The jockey, Herbert Jones, fell with the horse but managed to free himself and soon recovered from his cuts and bruises. Emily Davison was not so lucky. She had sustained a fractured skull, severe concussion and internal injuries. She was taken to Epsom Cottage Hospital, where surgeons attempted to relieve pressure on her brain. She never recovered and died four days later. The Derby incident, reported by all the main newspapers, captured by Pathé news and relayed around the world, has become a defining moment in British political history. Emily Davison has been perpetuated in popular memory as an unbalanced, suicidal fanatic. But was she? And was her death an accident, as the coroner of the day concluded? Who was Emily Wilding Davison? Emily Wilding Davison was born on 11 October 1872 in Blackheath. Hers was a comfortable, middle-class upbringing. Yet, following the death of her father, her family’s finances went into decline. So, when she was 19, the high-spirited, athletic and academically able Davison was forced to leave her studies at Royal Holloway college and take employment as a governess. Davison had soon saved enough money to pay for a term at St Hugh’s Hall, a women’s college recently founded in Oxford, and came out with a first-class degree in English language and literature. She went on to read for a London University degree, graduating with honours. With employment opportunities for university-educated women severely limited, Davison did what was expected of her and became a schoolteacher and, once again, a governess. When did Emily Davison join the suffrage movement? Davison's growing interest in the women’s movement was, no doubt, fuelled by her frustration at her secondary status in society – and, in November 1906, it led to her joining the WSPU, three years after its foundation by Emmeline Pankhurst to campaign for the parliamentary vote for women. One of Emmeline’s daughters, Sylvia, described Davison at this time as “tall and slender, with unusually long arms, a small narrow head and red hair. Her illusive, whimsical green eyes and thin, half-smiling mouth, bore often the mocking expression of the Mona Lisa.” Another contemporary, the journalist Rebecca West, remembered Davison as “a wonderful talker”, with “fine wits” and a “moral passion” to end injustices against the poor. For three years, Davison juggled teaching and suffrage work before devoting all her time to the women’s movement. Financial insecurity was partly offset by the warmth and support of a web of close friendships that included suffragettes such as Mary Leigh, Rose Larmartine Yates and Eleanor Penn Gaskell. Davison was bookish, level-headed and likeable. Yet she was also a risk-taker, whose willingness to embark on ever-more spectacular acts of protest to draw attention to the suffragettes’ cause landed her in prison eight times over the next four years. In context: the suffragette movement in 1913 By 1913, 10 years after its inception, the WSPU had still not secured women’s suffrage. The suffragettes had initially engaged in peaceful protest but, as the government refused to yield to their demands, they’d adopted more violent, illegal tactics, especially from 1912. In April 1913, the government introduced the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’ as a way to deal with imprisoned hunger-striking women. Under the act, prisoners who damaged their health through their own conduct could be temporarily released to recover, and then re-imprisoned to complete their sentence. Emmeline Pankhurst, who had been sentenced to three years’ penal servitude, was one such suffragette to feel the brutality of the new policy. She was in and out of prison, her health seriously suffering from repeated hunger strikes (though she was never forcibly fed). There was a fear in the movement generally that the government was trying to kill Pankhurst. This was part of the context in which Emily Wilding Davison visited the Derby on that fateful day of 4 June 1913. In 1909 – when she was arrested five times (once for stone throwing) – Davison wrote: “Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced.” Like many of her comrades, Davison went on hunger strike as a protest against the Liberal government’s refusal to grant imprisoned suffragettes political offender status – something that saw them being incarcerated alongside common criminals. Read more | Were the suffragettes terrorists? In the autumn of 1909, Davison’s refusal to eat culminated in her being forcibly fed – something that, she said, would “haunt” her “with its horror” all her life. When she barricaded her cell door to prevent further feeding, the prison authorities placed a hose pipe through a cell window, drenching her with icy water. “The thought in my mind was that the moment for the sacrifice, which we have all agreed will probably be demanded, was at hand, and, strange to say, I had no fear,” she later wrote. When the door was finally broken down, she was fed again. This incident proved a turning point for Davison. She now believed that the sacrifice of a life might be the only way to stop the government torturing women who were fighting for a just, democratic cause. In 1910 and 1911, Davison engaged in a series of ever-more imaginative escapades, such as hiding in the House of Commons – once in the hot-air shaft, and twice in the crypt. In December 1911, she initiated a different form of protest when, without the knowledge of the WSPU’s leadership, she was arrested for setting fire to a letter box. In the dock she explained that she had done so partly as a protest against the vindictive treatment of “my comrade, Mary Leigh [a fellow suffragette, recently sentenced to hard labour]”. During her six-month sentence in Holloway in 1912, Davison was force-fed again. On one occasion, as she lay recovering, the thought came to her “that some desperate protest must be made to put a stop to the hideous torture which was now being our lot”. That protest involved throwing herself twice over railings in Holloway – only for wire netting to break her fall. Undeterred, she then threw herself from the netting onto an iron staircase, a drop of about 10 feet. She lost consciousness, badly injured her head and cracked two vertebrae. Despite her injuries, she was force-fed again. On the podcast | Diane Atkinson on the women’s suffrage campaigners who believed in ‘deeds not words’ After her release, Davison told the Pall Mall Gazette that she had deliberately tried “to commit suicide” because she felt that “by nothing but the sacrifice of human life would the nation be brought to realise the horrible torture our women face. If I had succeeded I am sure that forcible feeding could not in all conscience have been resorted to again.” A few days later, she likened the suffering of the suffragettes to that of the early Christians, pointing out that the women were only able to endure their torture because they knew that “right” and “moral force” were on their side. Such an argument was not uncommon in WSPU rhetoric. January 1913 found Davison recuperating at her mother’s home in Longhorsley near Morpeth, after another spell in prison. She was hard-up and out of work. Things weren’t looking much better for the WSPU. A full 10 years after its establishment, the organisation had still not achieved its goal of securing the vote for women – and it was, by now, largely an underground movement, due to its adoption of illegal, violent tactics, such as secret arson. Worse still, many people believed that Emmeline Pankhurst, continually in and out of prison under the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’, was slowly being killed by a brutal government. By mid-June, however, it was Davison herself who was dead. Why was Emily Davison's death significant? Following the shocking events of Derby day, the WSPU leadership was quick to hail Davison as a martyr for the women’s cause. Emmeline Pankhurst described her as “one of our bravest soldiers” who has “gladly laid down her life for women’s freedom”. The front cover of the 13 June 1913 issue of The Suffragette – edited by Christabel Pankhurst, Emmeline’s eldest daughter and co-leader of the WSPU – contained a drawing of a female angel, wings unfurled and arms raised, standing in front of white railings. “In honour and in loving, reverent memory of Emily Wilding Davison. She died for women,” ran the caption. “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Five thousand women marched alongside Davison’s funeral procession in London on 14 June, making it the last of the great suffragette spectacles. After the coffin was carried into St George’s Church, Bloomsbury for a short memorial service, it was conveyed to King’s Cross station where it was taken by train to Morpeth for burial in St Mary’s churchyard. Did Emily Davison mean to kill herself? So was Emily Wilding Davison an unbalanced, suicidal fanatic? The evidence presented here suggests not. As her modern biographers Ann Morley and Liz Stanley argue, she was a sensible woman with a coherent philosophy who deliberately undertook her final militant act, knowing it might have fatal results. Davison probably did not intend to die. After all, she had bought a return ticket to Epsom, indicating that she intended to travel back home. But is that the whole story? Most present-day assessments, with their secular bias, give little attention to Emily’s religious convictions. Yet Gertrude Coleman, her first biographer, notes that she was “[i]nnately religious,” and “fully convinced that she was called by God, not only to work but also to fight for the cause she had espoused”. Davison was a devout Anglican, a regular churchgoer, and always kept a Bible by her bed. Her own particular motto was ‘Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God’. In the Price of Liberty, published posthumously, she wrote that the “true militant” would willingly sacrifice friendship, good report, love and even life itself to “win the Pearl of Freedom for her sex”. Referring to Christ’s suffering on the cross, she continued: “To lay down life for friends, that is glorious, selfless, inspiring! But to re-enact the tragedy of Calvary for generations yet unborn, that is the last consummate sacrifice of the Militant!” Read more | Anti-suffrage: the women who didn't want the vote It is important to remember that the suffragette movement had not only a political secular motive but also a much broader spiritual agenda. Emily Wilding Davison’s death was not a ‘suicide’ in the ordinary meaning of the term, since she risked her life to save her comrades from any further suffering. Suicide would have meant that she, a deeply committed Anglican, could not be buried in consecrated ground. Although we will never know what went through her mind that fateful day, the suffragettes fully understood her action: a desperate measure undertaken by a clever, level-headed woman for the cause of democracy. This article was first published in the June 2013 issue of BBC History Magazine
Women’s history podcasts: episodes not to miss
For Women's History Month, we’ve put together a list of HistoryExtra podcast episodes you can listen to featuring inspirational historical women and their achievements
Looking for a new podcast recommendation? In Women's History Month, learn more about remarkable women through history and their stories with these fascinating episodes from the HistoryExtra podcast... Madame Restell: the abortionist who shocked and fascinated 19th-century New York Jennifer Wright discusses the dramatic life of Madame Restell, a New York businesswoman who made millions – and horrified many – by selling abortions and birth control in the 19th century Sirens, succubi & sex symbols: a history of female monsters Sarah Clegg explores how and why historical myths have portrayed women as monstrous beings – from seductive, child-killing monsters to mermaids, sirens and vampires Medieval women: everything you wanted to know Eleanor Janega busts popular myths surrounding women in the Middle Ages, revealing how society was more open-minded than we might initially expect Female spies who forged the CIA Nathalia Holt discusses four women who undertook life-threatening missions and harnessed crucial intelligence in the early days of the Central Intelligence Agency Breastfeeding: a cultural history From ancient baby bottles to the perceived moral dangers of wetnursing, Joanna Wolfarth investigates what we can learn from changing attitudes to breastfeeding through history How six women programmed the world’s first modern computer During the Second World War, six talented mathematicians were brought together to make history. These women had one mission: to program the world’s first and only supercomputer. Speaking with Rachel Dinning, Kathy Kleiman explores the vital but overlooked role the “Eniac 6” played in the history of computing during and after the Second World War Njinga: queen, warrior, diplomat Luke Pepera tells Kev Lochun about the dramatic life and reign of Queen Njinga, the formidable 17th-century ruler of Ndongo and Matamba, in modern-day Angola Women who served in WW2 Tessa Dunlop explores the lives of the last surviving women who served in Britain’s armed forces during the Second World War Countryside campaigners: four women who fought for our green spaces Matthew Kelly explores the lives of four women who helped to protect the English countryside in the 19th and 20th centuries Warrior queens & quiet revolutionaries: forgotten women from history Author Kate Mosse shares inspirational stories of women from across global history – including the forgotten life of her great grandmother Lily Watson Want to know more about women's history? You can read our articles on the topic here.
Muriel Matters: the well-spoken women’s rights hero
How did an Australian elocutionist become a champion of the British women's suffrage movement? Robert Wainwright explores the surprising career of a very vocal activist
When Muriel Matters arrived in London in October 1905, she had little money but a handful of letters of introduction and dreams of becoming a West End star. At 28 years old, Muriel had achieved modest success as a comedic actor, and recognition as an orator – a propopent of the art of elocution – having trained alongside Lionel Logue, who later helped George VI overcome his stutter (as dramatised in The King’s Speech). Indeed, she went on to become one of the most famous women in England – though not as an actor but as a pioneering thinker, social reformer and activist. Read more | 100 women who changed the world Muriel had been inspired as a teenager by the fight for women’s suffrage in South Australia, which in 1894 had given women the rights of voting and standing for election. In London, she was viscerally drawn to rowdy meetings and “drinking in rebellious sentiments”, as she would write. She was soon persuaded that her extraordinary skills and persuasive talents would be wasted if used solely for a stage career. “My chances of success on the stage seemed assured, and yet daily the conviction grew that it was not for this that I had been drawn 16,000 miles...” she wrote. “I was a born agitator.” Read more | The gender pain gap: perceptions of women's health through history The women’s suffrage movement in Britain had fractured into three main groups. The Women’s Freedom League, led by Charlotte Despard, filled a niche between the suffragist and the later, sometimes more militant, suffragette camps. It was here that Muriel found her political home. One executive member discussed Muriel after her first speech: “Who was she? She had told us in her speech that she was an Australian, but for the rest we knew nothing … we debated how we could best use her gifts – her enthusiasm, her eloquence, her wonderful, magical voice – for the cause.” For three months in spring 1908 Muriel travelled from town to town, speaking in halls and fields, addressing the thousands who flocked to hear her. She was frequently flanked by police as violence threatened to erupt, mostly from men who hurled insults and missiles. Nevertheless, WFL membership climbed, and a new political star was born. The Palace of Westminster had become a focus of suffrage anger, notably a brass grille screwed to the front of the Ladies Gallery in the House of Commons, which physically shielded women from events in the chamber below – a symbol of misogyny. Read more | 20 inspirational quotes from women through history On 28 October 1908, Muriel and a colleague hid heavy chains and a padlock beneath their skirts, and tricked an MP into allowing them into the gallery. As MPs debated a finance bill, Muriel rushed forward and locked herself to the grille, launching into a speech that shocked MPs into silence: “We have sat behind this grille for too long… it is time that the women of England were given a voice in legislation which affects them as much as it affects men. We demand the vote.” It was the first speech by a woman inside the House of Commons. Security staff decided to detach the grille panels rather than saw through the chains. Thus Muriel succeeded: the hated grille was removed. After a month in Holloway Prison, she emerged to be proclaimed “the Heroine of the Grille”. In February 1909 Muriel boarded an airship for one of the first flights by a powered aircraft over the capital. Just as Edward VII’s golden carriage moved down The Mall, Muriel dropped hundreds of ‘Vote for Women’ leaflets – a daredevil protest that won international admiration. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2017/10/GettyImages-1051263950-85a6d0c-e1677596914111.jpg" width="620" height="397" alt="Suffrage-era, color postcard, depicting a two women, wearing propellers and wings, one wearing brown and dropping flyers, the other wearing red and yellow and shouting "Votes for Women" from a megaphone, likely referencing the ill-fated, 1909 dirigible flight of Australian suffragist, Muriel Matters, with the caption "Do You Aviate? "We Can Show 'Em A Few Points Now!" published for the British market, 1900." title="Suffrage-era, color postcard, depicting a two women, wearing propellers and wings, one wearing brown and dropping flyers, the other wearing red and yellow and shouting "Votes for Women" from a megaphone, likely referencing the ill-fated, 1909 dirigible flight of Australian suffragist, Muriel Matters, with the caption "Do You Aviate? "We Can Show 'Em A Few Points Now!" published for the British market, 1900." /> Read more | A brief history of International Women's Day: what is it and why do we celebrate it? When suffrage protests turned violent in 1911, Muriel decided to broaden her involvement in the feminist debate; for her, the vote was a symbol of the struggle for equality, rather than the only goal. She turned her focus to women and children living in poverty, spending two years living in the slums of Lambeth, working as a volunteer and a journalist for a prominent Christian newspaper. She continued her speaking career, becoming involved in industrial turmoil in Ireland and the housing crisis of Scotland. With the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, she became one of Britain’s most prominent pacifists. In 1924, at the behest of Britain’s first Labour prime minister, Ramsay McDonald, Muriel stood – albeit ultimately unsuccessfully – for election in Hastings. She retired to to the town, where she lived until her death in 1969 at the age of 92. Robert Wainwright is the author of Miss Muriel Matters: The Fearless Suffragist Who Fought for Equality (Allen & Unwin, 2017) This article was taken from issue 06 of BBC World Histories
How the battle for female suffrage in Britain was won
Did suffragette violence hasten victory? How critical to the campaign were the Pankhursts? And why did many women not want the franchise? Four expert historians – Jad Adams, Julia Bush, June Purvis and Fern Riddell – answer the big questions on female suffrage
Can the passing of the Representation of the People Act in 1918 – which, for the first time, gave some women the vote – be attributed to the suffrage campaign, the First World War, or other factors? Julia Bush: The suffrage campaign and the First World War both contributed to the timing and specific content of the 1918 act. However, it was probably inevitable that a century of democratisation, accompanied by growing government involvement in education and social welfare reform, would eventually encompass votes for women. Long-term, peaceful pressure from the organised suffrage campaign helped move this change slowly forward. The war, combined with prewar suffragette militancy, initially delayed suffrage legislation. But by 1917–18 it was generally accepted that serving soldiers had earned the right to vote. As a result, when legislation was passed in 1918, it enfranchised all men over the age of 21, and also gave the vote to women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification. Older women were included less because of their war work than because politicians hoped they would provide conservative ballast within the new mass electorate, reinforcing the stability of a society threatened by war and the spectre of Bolshevism. Jad Adams: The act was part of a wave of national enfranchisements that started in 1893 with New Zealand and which was largely completed by Switzerland in 1971. Britain was no pioneer. Seven countries had enfranchised women before Britain, and at least another seven enfranchised in the same year, 1918. The most important common factor in the enfranchisements of women was the re-evaluation of national identity in the face of catastrophes such as war, revolution or independence struggles. Old ideas had to be rejected and the nation reformed. This is what happened in Britain in the wake of the sacrifices of the First World War, with the granting of universal male suffrage and a limited franchise for women. June Purvis: Some historians claim that it was women’s war work during the First World War that won the vote, ignoring the fact that working-class women under 30 who staffed the munitions factories were not included in the 1918 act. Others suggest that the war itself made progress possible, with minimal involvement from suffrage organisations. Fear of a militant suffragette revival was a significant factor in the granting of the vote. The prewar suffrage campaign transformed women’s perception of themselves and the public’s perception of women. Read more | "Can we call the suffragettes terrorists? Absolutely", says Fern Riddell Fern Riddell: The act was passed partly due to the spectre of the return of suffragette violence. Having overseen the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU)’s arson and bombing campaign before the war, Emmeline Pankhurst acted as a British diplomatic envoy to Russia in 1917. She persuaded the British government to send her to speak as one violent revolutionary leader to another. Russia granted female suffrage in July 1917, and it was clear that the intense violence of the WSPU, which stopped after the outbreak of the First World War, could begin again if British women did not get the vote. What did women feel the vote could bring them, long-term? JB: Women’s aspirations varied, then as now. Most suffragists hoped that the vote would improve their lives by increasing their autonomy, whether within marriage or as single women. However, the desire for individual self-fulfillment was often tempered, and sometimes submerged, by a strong sense of gendered responsibility. Middle-class women hoped that the vote would strengthen their role as carers and moral guardians within their own families and throughout the wider society of Britain and its empire. For poorer women, the vote also represented a route towards the economic security that was an essential underpinning for successful family life. Working-class suffragists realised that government legislation was needed to supplement trade union efforts to improve living standards. Read more | Cat and mouse: force feeding the suffragettes JA: Both constitutional suffragists and militant suffragettes believed the national vote was the key which would lead to a nation in which all the moral impurities of society were legislated away. The leading suffragette Christabel Pankhurst coined the slogan ‘votes for women and chastity for men’ and, in her book The Great Scourge and How to End It, promoted the franchise as a response to syphilis. Pankhurst believed that, if women had political power, men could be obliged to behave with the same restraint expected of Victorian ladies: having sex with only one person and then only after marriage. It was simplistic notions like this that appalled female commentators such as journalist Eliza Lynn Linton and led them to say that if women really thought they were going to impose polite drawing room manners on political life they had better not have the vote. JP: The lack of the vote was seen as the most significant symbol of women’s inferior status in society. Once the vote was won, it was felt that all kinds of inequalities that women experienced would be swept away. Has the role of the Pankhurst family been exaggerated in the fight for women’s suffrage? JP: No. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, the co-leaders of the WSPU, were charismatic and powerful speakers who, with their cry of ‘Rise up, women!’, encouraged thousands of women to demand their democratic right to the parliamentary vote in a mass movement unparalleled in British politics. JB: The role of the Pankhurst family holds unjustified sway within most popular representations of the suffrage movement and has also been exaggerated by some historians. The Pankhursts' iconic leadership repelled as well as attracted many contemporaries, and the escalating violence of the militant campaign made it impossible for the prewar government to ‘surrender’ to suffragist pressure. On the other hand, the glamour and excitement of the Pankhursts left an indelible mark on women’s history and on the history of popular protest. On the podcast | June Purvis considers the roles of Emmeline, Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst in the fight for women’s suffrage in Britain JA: The Pankhursts had a strong personal following, rather like the Booth family who founded the Salvation Army. Their message incorporated parades, a uniform, strict discipline, the expulsion of ‘heretics’, willingness to go to extremes and dominance by one family. All this went with a vibrant millennial message: effectively a promise of paradise if followers made sufficient sacrifices. But neither the Pankhursts nor the Booths originated the doctrine for which they expected such sacrifices. They marketed existing beliefs in a vibrant and eye-catching way. The Pankhursts did not create the women’s suffrage movement any more than the Booths created Christianity. FR: The Pankhursts have dominated the history of the suffrage movement in Britain, and also the history of the WSPU. Christabel Pankhurst orchestrated hundreds of arson and bomb attacks from Paris. But the stories of the women who actually carried these out have never been told. Their sacrifices are an integral part of the suffrage fight. These are the women we should be remembering on the centenary of the vote. How much popular support did the ‘votes for women’ campaign command in the years leading up to 1918? JA: There was widespread sympathy for the principle that at least some women should have the vote, and a general public acceptance that it would come eventually. That said, there was no enthusiasm. A favourable majority was secured in the House of Commons in 1897. There was no parliamentary time allotted, but the Conservative leader of the house, Arthur Balfour, said any further electoral reform measure would have to include women’s suffrage. As the proposition was an extension of Liberal ideas of democracy, it did not help that two Liberal prime ministers of the time, William Gladstone and HH Asquith, were both bitterly opposed to votes for women, despite their parties being generally in favour. JP: As with most progressive causes, there were more men and women opposed to women’s suffrage than in favour of it. It is estimated that nearly half a million women signed anti-suffrage petitions before 1914. The membership of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), which included both men and women, was about 50,000 at this time. That of the WSPU, which was women only, was about 5,000 or less. JB: There are many ways of gauging support for the suffrage campaign, none of them very reliable. It’s important to acknowledge not only gender differences but also the variables of social class, region and religion. Suffragists and anti-suffragists both carried out primitive opinion polls, producing contradictory results to support their own campaigns. It seems likely that a ‘silent majority’ of men and women held fluctuating opinions, attaching less importance to the whole issue than politicians and campaigners but responding either positively or negatively to the polarising impact of suffragette militancy. So did suffragette violence help or hinder the campaign? JB: The First World War released suffragette militants from a political cul-de-sac of their own making. While a minority of women (and some men) were inspired by the bravery and determination of the most militant women, many others recoiled in horror from violence against property, which seemed likely to inflict eventual personal injury. It is clear that the prewar Liberal government was negatively influenced by suffragette violence. Prejudices against ‘irrational’ female voters were reinforced, and even those politicians who favoured enfranchisement were reluctant to respond to pressure exerted by suffragette extremists. FR: We haven’t paid enough attention to the sheer scale of the suffragette violence. During its height, in one month alone, there were 52 violent attacks including 29 bombs and 15 arson attempts on churches, railway stations, post offices, banks, newspaper offices and even MPs' homes. Until we fully comprehend the full impact of these actions, we can’t begin to understand what it did to the suffrage campaign as a whole. JP: Too much emphasis is given to suffragette violence and not enough to state violence against women campaigning for their democratic right to the parliamentary vote. Even when campaigning peacefully, suffragettes could be roughly handled by the police, imprisoned, or forcibly fed if they went on hunger strike. Forcible feeding was a brutal, life-threatening and degrading operation, performed by male doctors on struggling female bodies. Many of the women experienced it as a form of instrumental rape. Damage to property did not make the suffragettes popular but they always observed the strict orders of the WSPU leadership never to endanger human life. They did not kill or harm anyone. Since argument had failed to persuade an obdurate Liberal government to grant women the vote, some were prepared to adopt the violent methods that men had used successfully in the past when campaigning for their enfranchisement. Banned from attending Liberal party meetings and holding their own, the suffragettes were outside the constitution with no legitimate forms of protest. JA: Some things they did disgusted the public, such as the slashing of the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery. The suffragette who did this thought it would aid the cause, but the logic escaped art lovers. Starting fires in theatres and planting bombs in churches endangered lives. By the end of the campaign, the authorities feared that a suffragette would be seriously injured by members of the public outraged at their vandalism. On the positive side, in the early 20th century, suffragette violence kept the issue of votes for women on the agenda. It could otherwise easily have been subsumed under the furore over Ireland, labour unrest and German military expansion. When they were finally given the vote, how did women feel about not being granted an equal franchise to men? JA: The act of 1918 was a settlement with the people of a country that was still engaged in a major war. Britons had a lot to be concerned about and the issue of votes for women wasn’t high on the list. In this climate, supporters were happy that suffrage had been achieved, even if it was limited. You’ve got to remember that an equal franchise would have entitled more women to vote than men. That prospect was unpalatable to a lot of people so the compromise of offering the vote to some women over 30 was generally deemed acceptable. This meant that the women who had done most for the war effort – those under 30 – were excluded from the ballot. That very fact qualifies the idea that war work earned women the vote. JP: Both the suffragists of the NUWSS and the suffragettes of the WSPU had campaigned for votes for women on the same terms as it was, or would be granted to men. This did not happen with the 1918 act and both groups felt let down. However, they knew that the sex discrimination that had prevented all women from being granted the vote had been broken and that it would not be too long before women won enfranchisement on equal terms with men. JB: There was disappointment within the suffrage movement over the restriction of women’s voting rights in 1918, which related both to age and income. However, there was no public outcry. Instead, both suffragists and anti-suffragists turned enthusiastically to the task of organising newly enfranchised women and testing out their influence upon social reform agendas. The demand for an equal franchise was never silenced during the first decade of votes for women. Suffragists eventually found themselves pushing at an opening door, since only 10 MPs voted against the 1928 bill to give women the same voting rights as men. The vote was won, at least partly, because female voters had proved themselves harmless! How did people feel about New Zealand – then a British colony – giving the vote to women 25 years before Britain? JB: Suffragists drew inspiration from the enfranchisement of New Zealand women, and valued their visible support at many public marches and meetings. However, anti-suffrage women argued that the colonial New Zealand experience was irrelevant to the debate over women’s participation in Britain’s imperial government. A strong current of imperialism flowed through both suffrage and anti-suffrage campaigns, with an emphasis upon motherhood at its heart. British suffragists saw the success of New Zealand’s social welfare programme as evidence of female voters' potential to enhance imperial power. On the other hand, anti-suffragists believed that New Zealand’s healthy women and children proved the suitability of women for local government only. Social welfare was women’s business, while military and imperial affairs belonged emphatically to the male parliament at Westminster. JA: Feelings were mixed. From one point of view, the New Zealand achievement was seen to be the harbinger of widespread enfranchisements. On the other hand, what were colonials doing possessing a right that had been denied British women? It was particularly objectionable to society ladies like Millicent Fawcett that native women should be given the vote. Her position was now inferior, as she said, to “that of the Maori women of New Zealand who have more power in developing and moulding the future of the empire than we have in England. Why should the Maori women be in a superior position to that held by the women of England?” Why did it take so long for British women to get the vote? JA: Did it take that long? In Britain female ratepayers got the vote for municipal elections in 1869 – they would have to wait less than 50 years to receive the parliamentary vote. And that delay wasn’t due to rabid opposition but because where was no agreement on which women should get the vote. By the 1890s there was a majority for women’s suffrage in the House of Commons. A narrow franchise based on the ownership of property would primarily benefit the Conservatives in general elections; a wider franchise of ratepayers would benefit the Liberals. The breakthrough came when the NUWSS made a deal with the new but fast-growing Labour party in 1912 to support Labour candidates, particularly in seats held by Liberals with unsatisfactory records on women’s suffrage. JP: There are two main reasons. First, the two leading political parties – the Liberals and the Tories – sought party advantage from a female suffrage measure and could not agree on the grounds for such legislation. Second, for the major part of the 20th-century suffrage campaign, the Liberal Herbert Asquith, a staunch opponent of votes for women, was the prime minister. Even in 1920, he still expressed his contempt for female voters, describing the women on the voting register in Paisley, Scotland, as “a dim, impenetrable… element – of whom all that one knows is that they are for the most part hopelessly ignorant of politics, credulous to the last degree and flickering with gusts of sentiment like a candle in the wind”. JB: The length of the suffrage campaign is evidence of the depth of resistance from male politicians, sometimes linked to opportunist calculations about the electoral impact of female voters. Both male and female opposition to votes for women was fundamentally due to deep-seated views on separate gender roles and their importance to a stable and civilised society. Such views were reinforced by late 19th-century concerns over national and imperial strength, in an era of increasing economic and strategic rivalry among the world powers. Did women see any immediate changes to their lives as a result of the act? JA: Not really. As 19th-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out– when, in 1867, he proposed votes for women in parliament – there was no justice in denying women the vote. It was an easy concession to grant because it would make no difference. He realised that women would vote with their families or class, rather than with their gender. And so it proved. JP: There was much more legislation that changed women’s lives after 1918 than before. On 21 November 1918, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Bill was passed, making women eligible to stand for parliament on equal terms as men. In doing so, it allowed women between the ages of 21 and 30 to stand for election to a parliament they could not themselves elect. The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919, in principle, abolished disqualification by sex or marriage for entry to the professions and universities, and the exercise of any public function. The following year, 200 women were appointed magistrates. Also in 1919, the Industrial Courts Act allowed women to sit on courts of arbitration on issues such as workplace pay and conditions. The 1922 Infanticide Act eliminated the charge of murder for a woman guilty of killing her child when it was shown that she was suffering from the effects of her confinement. Then, in 1923, the Matrimonial Causes Act relieved wives of the necessity to prove desertion, cruelty or other faults in addition to adultery as grounds for divorce. JB: An unprecedented amount of social reform legislation was passed during the decade after the 1918 act, but this does not prove a causal link. The social welfare agenda of the organised women’s movement was finally addressed during the 1920s, and women’s legal status also improved. However anti-suffrage women had always argued that male politicians could be persuaded to support their reform agenda without conceding the vote. Non-political women’s organisations continued to press effectively for policy reform, both before and after the vote was won. Meanwhile many former suffragists were disappointed by their failure to transform the male institution of parliament, and by the defeat of important campaigns to improve women’s employment opportunities. The panel June Purvis is emeritus professor of women’s and gender history at the University of Portsmouth. She has written extensively on the suffragette movement, including Christabel Pankhurst: A Biography (published by Routledge in January) Jad Adams is a fellow of the School of Advanced Study, University of London and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. His most recent book is Women and the Vote: A World History (OUP, 2014) Julia Bush is a former senior lecturer in history at the University of Northampton. Her books include Women Against the Vote: Female Anti-Suffragism in Britain (OUP, 2007) Fern Riddell is a historian specialising in sex and suffrage. She is a consultant on the BBC One documentary How Women Won the Vote This article was first published in the February 2018 edition of BBC History Magazine