THE MILITANT SOCIETIES
"It is a calumny on men to say that they are roused to heroic action
by ease, hope of pleasure--sugar plums of any kind. In the meanest
mortal there lies something nobler. Difficulty, abnegation, martyrdom,
death, are the allurements which act upon the heart of man."--Thomas
Carlyle.
In Chapters II. and III. an outline was given of the Parliamentary
history of women's suffrage between 1867 and 1897. In those thirty
years the movement had progressed until it had reached a point when
it could count upon a majority of suffragists being returned in
each successively elected House of Commons. In 1899 came the South
African War, and the main interest of the nation was concentrated on
that struggle till it was over. A war almost invariably suspends all
progress in domestic and social legislation. Two fires cannot burn
together, and the most ardent of the suffragists felt that, while the
war lasted, it was not a fitting time to press their own claims and
objects. The war temporarily suspended the progress of the suffrage
movement, but it is probable that it ultimately strengthened the demand
of women for citizenship, for it has been observed again and again
that a war, or any other event which stimulates national vitality,
and the consciousness of the value of citizenship is almost certain
to be followed by increased vigour in the suffrage movement, and not
infrequently by its success. For instance, suffrage in Finland in 1907
followed immediately upon the great struggle with Russia to regain
constitutional liberty; women as well as men had thrown themselves into
that struggle and borne the great sacrifices it entailed, and when
Finland wrung from the Czar the granting of the Constitution, women's
suffrage formed an essential part of it, and was demanded by the almost
unanimous voice of the Finnish people. Again, when suffrage was
granted to women in Norway in 1907, it was immediately after the great
outburst of national feeling which led to the separation from Sweden,
and established Norway as an independent kingdom. Upon the rights and
wrongs of the controversy between the two countries it is not for us
to enter, but the intensity of the feeling in Norway in favour of
separation is undoubted. The women had shared in the national fervour
and in all the work and sacrifices it entailed. The Parliamentary
Suffrage was granted to women as one of the first Acts of the Norwegian
Parliament.
In the Commonwealth of Australia almost the first Act of the first
Parliament was the enfranchisement of women. The national feeling of
Australia had been stimulated and the sense of national responsibility
deepened by the events which led to the Federation of the Independent
States of the Australian Continent. It is true that South Australia and
Western Australia had led the way about women's suffrage before this in
1893 and 1899, but up to the time of the formation of the Commonwealth
there had been no such rapid extension of the suffrage to women as that
which accompanied or immediately followed it.[31]
The fight for suffrage in the United Kingdom is not won yet, but it
has made enormous progress towards victory, and this, in my opinion,
is in part due to the quickened sense of national responsibility, the
deeper sense of the value of citizenship which was created by the South
African War. The war in the first instance originated from the refusal
of the vote to Englishmen and other "Uitlanders" long settled in the
Transvaal. The newspapers, therefore, both in this country and in South
Africa constantly dwelt on the value and significance of the vote. _The
Spectator_ once put the point with great brevity and force when it
wrote, "We dwell so strongly on the franchise because it includes all
other rights, and is the one essential thing." Now this is either true
or untrue; if true it applies to women as well as to "Uitlanders."
After thinking of the war and its causes the first thing in the morning
and the last thing at night for nearly three years, there were many
thousands of Englishwomen who asked themselves why, if the vote to
Englishmen in the Transvaal was worth £200,000,000 of money and some
30,000 lives, it was not also of great value and significance to women
at home. Why, they said to themselves and to others, are we to be
treated as perpetual "Uitlanders" in the country of our birth, which we
love as well as any other of its citizens?
Therefore in the long run the war, though it temporarily caused a
suspension of the suffrage agitation, nourished it at its source, and
very shortly after the declaration of peace it became more active than
it had ever been before. Ever since 1897, when Mr. Faithfull Begg's
Women's Suffrage Bill had been read a second time by 228 to 157, the
enemies of suffrage in the House of Commons had managed to evade a
vote on a direct issue. The days obtained for Suffrage Bills were
absorbed by the Government or merged into the holidays. One or other
of the hundred ways of burking discussion open to the experienced
Parliamentarian was used. Nevertheless women's suffrage resolutions
were brought forward in 1904 and 1905; that of 1905 was "talked out."
At the end of 1905 the general public first became aware of a new
element in the suffrage movement. The Women's Social and Political
Union had been formed by Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst in 1903, but the
"militant movement," with which its name will always be associated,
had not attracted any public notice till the end of 1905. Its
manifestations and multifarious activities have been set forth in
detail by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst in a book, and are also so well known
from other sources that it is unnecessary to dwell upon them here.[32]
It is enough to say that by adopting novel and startling methods not at
the outset associated with physical violence or attempts at violence,
they succeeded in drawing a far larger amount of public attention to
the claims of women to representation than ever had been given to the
subject before. These methods were regarded by many suffragists with
strong aversion, while others watched them with sympathy and admiration
for the courage and self-sacrifice which these new methods involved.
It is notorious that differences of method separate people from one
another even more acutely than differences of aim. This has been seen
in the history of religion as well as in politics:--
"Christians have burnt each other, quite persuaded
That the apostles would have done as they did."
It was a most anxious time for many months when there seemed a danger
that the suffrage cause might degenerate into futile quarrelling among
suffragists about the respective merits of their different methods,
rather than develop into a larger, broader, and more widespread
movement. This danger has been happily averted, partly by the good
sense of the suffragists of all parties, who held firmly to the sheet
anchor of the fact that they were all working for precisely the same
thing, the removal of the sex disability in Parliamentary elections,
and, therefore, that what united them was more important than that
which separated them. The formation of the anti-suffrage societies
was also from this point of view most opportune, giving us all an
immediate objective. It was obvious to all suffragists that they should
turn their artillery on their opponents rather than on each other.
Therefore, while recognising fully all the acute differences which
must exist between the advocates of revolutionary and constitutional
methods, each group went on its own way; and the total result has
undoubtedly been an extraordinary growth in the vigour and force of the
suffrage movement all over the country. The most satisfactory feature
of the situation was that however acute were the differences between
the heads of the different societies, the general mass of suffragists
throughout the country were loyal to the cause by whomsoever it
was represented, just as Italian patriots in the great days of the
_Risorgimento_ supported the unity of Italy, whether promoted by
Cavour, Garibaldi, or Mazzini.[33]
The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies endeavoured to
steer an even keel. They never weakened in their conviction that
constitutional agitation was not only right in itself, but would
prove far more effective in the long run than any display of physical
violence, as a means of converting the electorate, the general public,
and, consequently, Parliament and the Government, to a belief in
women's suffrage. But the difficulties for a long time were very great.
A few of our own members attacked us because we were not militant;
others resigned because they disapproved of the militantism which we
had repudiated. On one such occasion a high dignitary of the Church of
England, who is also a distinguished historian, wrote to resign his
position as vice-president of one of our societies because he highly
disapproved of the recent action of the members of militant societies.
The honorary secretary replied, asking him if he was also relinquishing
his connection with Christianity, as she gathered from his writings
that he strongly disapproved of what some Christians had done in the
supposed interests of Christianity. It is to the credit of both that
the threatened resignation was withdrawn. We tried to comfort and help
the weak-hearted by reminding them, in the words of Viscount Morley,
that "No reformer is fit for his task if he suffers himself to be
frightened by the excesses of an extreme wing."[34]
Personally it was to myself the most difficult time of my forty years
of suffrage work. I was helped a good deal by recalling a saying of
my husband's about the Irish situation in the 'eighties, when he was
heard saying to himself, "Just keep on and do what is right." I am far
from claiming that we actually accomplished the difficult feat of doing
what was right, but I believe we tried to. But the brutal severity with
which some of the militant suffragists were treated gave suffragists of
all parties another subject on which they were in agreement.
Minor breaches of the law, such as waving flags and making speeches in
the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament, were treated more severely
than serious crime on the part of men has often been. A sentence of
three months' imprisonment as an ordinary offender was passed in one
case against a young girl who had done nothing except to decline to be
bound over to keep the peace which she was prepared to swear she had
not broken. The turning of the hose upon a suffrage prisoner in her
cell in a midwinter night, and all the anguish of the hunger strike and
forcible feeding are other examples. All through 1908 and 1909 a dead
set was made upon law-breakers, real or supposed, who were obscure and
unknown; while people with well-known names and of good social position
were treated with leniency, and in some cases were allowed to do almost
anything without arrest or punishment.[35]
The militant societies split into two in 1907, when the Freedom League
was formed under the Presidency of Mrs. Despard. Shortly after this
both the militant groups abandoned the plan upon which for the first
few years they had worked--that of suffering violence, but using none.
Stone-throwing of a not very formidable kind was indulged in, and
personal attacks upon Ministers of the Crown were attempted.[36] These
new developments necessitated, in the opinion of the National Union
of Women's Suffrage Societies, the publication of protests expressing
their grave and strong objection to the use of personal violence as
a means of political propaganda. These protests were published in
November 1908 and October 1909.[37] The second, and shortest, was as
follows:--
"That the Council of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies
strongly condemns the use of violence in political propaganda, and
being convinced that the true way of advocating the cause of Women's
Suffrage is by energetic, law-abiding propaganda, reaffirms its
adherence to constitutional principles, and instructs the Executive
Committee and the Societies to communicate this resolution to the
Press."
To this was added:--
"That while condemning methods of violence the Council of the
N.U.W.S.S. also protests most earnestly against the manner in which
the whole Suffrage agitation has been handled by the responsible
Government."
The National Union has not thought it necessary publicly to protest
against every individual act of violence. Having definitely and in a
full Council, where all the societies in the Union are represented in
proportion to their membership, put upon record that they "strongly
condemn the use of violence in political propaganda," it appears
unnecessary to asseverate that they condemn individual acts of
violence. There is a remarkable passage in one of Cromwell's letters
explaining why that which is gained by force is of little value in
comparison with that which is conceded to the claims of justice and
reason. "Things obtained by force," he wrote, "though never so good
in themselves, would be both less to their honour and less likely to
last than concessions made to argument and reason." "What we gain
in a free way is better than twice as much in a forced, and will be
more truly ours and our posterity's."[38] The practical example of
male revolutionists is often cited to the contrary; but with all due
respect to the other sex, is not their example too often an example
of how not to do it? The Russian revolution, for instance, seems to
have thrown the political development of Russia into a vicious circle:
"we murder you because you and your like have murdered us," and thus
it goes on in an endless vista like one mirror reflecting another. I
admit fully that the kind and degree of violence carried out by the
so-called "suffragettes" is of the mildest description; a few panes of
glass have been broken, and meetings have been disturbed, but no one
has suffered in life or limb; our great movement towards freedom has
not been stained by serious crime. Compared with the Irish Nationalist
movement in the 'eighties, or the recent unrest in India, the so-called
"violence" of the suffragettes is absolutely negligible in degree,
except as an indication of their frame of mind.
Far more violence has been suffered by the suffragettes than they have
caused their opponents to suffer. The violence of the stewards at
Liberal meetings in throwing out either men or women who dared to ask
questions about women's suffrage has been most discreditable. It may be
hoped it has been checked by an action claiming damages brought on at
the Leeds Assizes in March 1911 on behalf of a man who had had his leg
broken by the violence with which he had been thrown out of a meeting
at Bradford by Liberal stewards, in the previous November. The judge
ruled that his ejection from the meeting was in itself unlawful, and
the only question he left to the jury was to assess damages. The jury
awarded the plaintiff £100; this decision was appealed against, but the
appeal was withdrawn in October 1911.[39]
Mark Twain once wrote of the women suffragists in his own country, "For
forty years they have swept an imposingly large number of unfair laws
from the statute books of America. In this brief time these serfs have
set themselves free--essentially. _Men could not have done as much for
themselves in that time without bloodshed_, at least they never
have, and that is an argument that they didn't know how."[40]
Perhaps the mild degree of violence perpetrated by the suffragettes was
intended to lower our sex pride; we were going to show the world how
to gain reforms without violence, without killing people and blowing
up buildings, and doing the other silly things that men have done when
they wanted the laws altered. Lord Acton once wrote: "It seems to be
a law of political evolution that no great advance in human freedom
can be gained except after the display of some kind of violence." We
wanted to show that we could make the grand advance in human freedom,
at which we aimed without the display of any kind of violence. We have
been disappointed in that ambition, but we may still lay the flattering
unction to our souls that the violence offered has not been formidable,
and that the fiercest of the suffragettes have been far more ready
to suffer pain than to inflict it. What those endured who underwent
the hunger strike and the anguish of forcible feeding can hardly be
overestimated. Their courage made a very deep impression on the public
and touched the imagination of the whole country.
Of course a very different measure is applied to men and women in
these matters. Women are expected to be able to bear every kind of
injustice without even "a choleric word"; if men riot when they do
not get what they want they are leniently judged, and excesses of
which they may be guilty are excused in the House of Commons, in the
press, and on the bench on the plea of political excitement. Compare
the line of the press on the strike riots in Wales and elsewhere with
the tone of the same papers on the comparatively infinitesimal degree
of violence shown by the militant suffragists. No one has been more
severe in his condemnation of militantism than Mr. Churchill, but
speaking in the House of Commons in August 8, 1911, about the violent
riots in connection with Parliamentary Reform in 1832, he is reported
to have said: "It is true there was rioting in 1832, _but the people
had no votes then, and had very little choice as to the alternatives
they should adopt_." If this is a good argument, why not extend its
application to the militant suffragists?
The use of physical violence by the militant societies was not the only
difference between them and the National Union. The two groups between
1905 and 1911 adopted different election policies. The militants
believed, and they had much ground for their belief, that the only
chance of a Women's Suffrage Bill being carried into law lay in its
adoption by one or other of the great political parties as a party
question. The private member, they urged, had no longer a chance of
passing an important measure; it must be backed by a Government. Hence
they concluded that the individual member of Parliament was of no
particular consequence, and they concentrated their efforts at each
electoral contest in endeavouring to coerce the Government of the day
to take up the suffrage cause. Their cry in every election was "Keep
the Liberal out," not, as they asserted, from party motives, but
because the Government of the day, and the Government alone, had the
power to pass a Suffrage Bill; and as long as any Government declined
to take up suffrage they would have to encounter all the opposition
which the militants could command. In carrying out this policy they
opposed the strongest supporters of women's suffrage if they were also
supporters of the Government.
The National Union adopted a different election policy--that of
obtaining declarations of opinion from all candidates at each election
and supporting the man, independent of party, who gave the most
satisfactory assurances of support. In the view of the National Union
this policy was infinitely more adapted to the facts of the situation
than that adopted by the militants. What was desired was that the
electorate should be educated in the principles of women's suffrage,
and made to understand what women wanted, and why they wanted it; and
electors were much more likely to approach the subject in a reasonable
frame of mind if they had not been thrown into a violent rage by what
they considered an unfair attack upon their own party. To this it was
replied that only the Liberals were enraged and that the Conservatives
would be correspondingly conciliated. It did not appear, however, that
this was actually the case. The Conservatives were not slow to see that
their immunity from attack was only temporary; when their turn came
to have a Government in power the cry would be changed to "Keep the
Conservative out." And then having profoundly irritated one half of the
electorate, the militants would go on to irritate the other half. What
the National Union aimed at was the creation in each constituency of a
Women's Suffrage society on non-party lines, which should by meetings,
articles, and educational propaganda of all kinds create so strong a
feeling in favour of women's suffrage as to make party managers on both
sides realise, in choosing candidates, that they would have a better
chance of success with a man who was a suffragist than with a man who
was an anti-suffragist.
The whole Parliamentary situation was altered when in November 1910,
and again more explicitly in June and August 1911, Mr. Asquith promised
on behalf of the Government that on certain conditions they would
grant time for all the stages of a Women's Suffrage Bill during this
Parliament. This removed the basis on which the militant societies had
founded their election policy; it no longer was an impossibility for a
private member to carry a Reform Bill, and it became obvious that the
road to success lay in endeavouring, as far as possible, to promote the
return of men of all parties to the House of Commons who were genuine
suffragists. The Women's Social and Political Union and the Freedom
League appreciated the importance of this change, and early in 1911
they definitely suspended militant action, and abandoned their original
election policy. There was thus harmony in methods as well as unity of
aims between the Suffrage Societies until this harmony was disturbed by
the events to be described in the next chapter.