In
1913 and 1914 a bomb was found at the Bank of England in London. Other
incendiary devices discovered in the capital included one with “Votes for Women”
labels on it at the Grand Hotel. Loud ticking led to the discovery of a device
in St Paul’s Cathedral, and other bombs were discovered in the Church of St
John the Evangelist in Westminster, and at Westminster Abbey. A bomb was sent
to the chief magistrate at Bow Street Police Court, and a tube of nitro-glycerine
was found on the London Underground.
Around
the country similar incidents were recorded in Manchester, where a bomb
destroyed the cactus house in Alexandra Park. Glasgow’s Winter Gardens also
came under attack. In Taunton a device was discovered at the Lyceum Theatre, at
that time under construction. A bomb appeared on the steps of Cheltenham Town
Hall. A house under construction for David Lloyd George at Walton-in-the-Hill
was bombed by Emily Wilding Davison and other suffragettes. Explosives were
found at Cambridge University’s football ground. In December a bomb exploded
outside Holloway Prison. There were other incidents in Plymouth, Macclesfield, Liverpool,
Caerleon, and many other locations.
This
list is by no means exhaustive, and it includes one or two incidents which have
not been definitely attributed to the suffragettes (the Grand Hotel and Bow
Street bombs, for instance). Nevertheless, the blame has usually fallen on the
militants of the WSPU.
The
devices were made with dynamite, nitro-glycerine, phosphorous and other
substances and they were extremely effective. That is to say, they were
dangerous and destructive. Yet these qualities are often overlooked in accounts
of the militant suffrage campaign. I think this is in a very large part because
of Mrs Pankhurst’s insistence that no life should be put in danger by it. Suffragette
militancy wasn’t really all that bad, we can tell ourselves, because no one was
hurt by it.
A suffragette with bomb, kerosene, gun powder and matches. |
Rebecca West, writing in The Clarion on 28 February 1913, ridiculed
public expressions of regret for the loss of buildings and other property.
Referring to the recent burning of the tea house at Kew Gardens by suffragette
Lilian Lenton, West wrote, “I have no idea why the public should suddenly show
a maudlin affection, such as they usually reserve for the royal family, for the
late tea-house”. She pointed to all the suffragettes had had to endure from the government – the obstinacy,
dishonesty, duplicity and malice, and she commented that “it says much for [the
WSPU’s] self-control that there has been nothing worse than these quite
discreet and controlled attacks on unimportant property”.
Mrs
Pankhurst herself contrasted what West called the women’s “mild” militancy with
bloodthirsty male terrorism. She criticized the Government for receiving a
delegation of the Young Turkish Revolutionary Party – men who had killed –
while she was in prison for nothing more than distributing a handbill. She wondered why no one condemned the men in Ireland
who were making preparations to “destroy not only property, but human life”. In her defence speech in court on 21
May 1912 she insisted, “We have assaulted no one; we have done no hurt to
anyone”.
But
this isn’t strictly speaking true. The militant suffragette campaign was not
without its casualties. Following attacks on letter boxes with incendiary or chemical
devices, four postal workers in Dundee
sustained burns to their hands after handling tubes placed in letter boxes; a
worker in Croydon had to be treated for smoke inhalation when a package burst
into flames; and in Fulham another was injured by sulphuric acid. Women
themselves suffered injury: a woman attempting to set the contents of a letter
box alight was burned on the arm, and bloodstains found at one arson site,
where the women broke a window to get in, suggested that one of the arsonists
was wounded.
Of course, none of these injuries were intentional, but they do throw doubt on
the assertion that suffragette militancy harmed no one.
And
there were instances when harm was deliberately inflicted. Winston Churchill
was attacked by suffragette Theresa Garnett, wielding a whip, at Bristol Temple
Meads railway station in November 1909. The Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith,
was assaulted by three suffragettes in Kent in September 1909, and his daughter
Violet describes further violent scenes with suffragettes in her letters. Emily
Wilding Davison, who died after she ran in front of the King’s horse at the
1913 Derby, attacked a man she mistook for Lloyd George on Aberdeen railway
station. In February 1914 Lord Weardale was mistaken for the Prime Minister and
assaulted with a dog whip at Euston station. A prison medical officer was
assaulted outside Holloway Prison by a woman he had forcibly fed.
Women
carrying whips, catapults and in at least one case even a gun caused or were
likely to cause injury. Of all the weapons they used, bombs had the most
potential for harm. Take, for example, the incident at
St John the Evangelist in Westminster in July 1914. Here a woman left a
canister of gunpowder and iron filings with a lit fuse under a church pew as
the congregation was leaving. I can’t help wondering how she could possibly
have thought there was no risk to the people in the building, even if she did
think the bomb wasn’t due to explode for another hour. Mind you, I also wonder
at the common sense of the hundred worshippers who stood round watching the
bomb being doused with water.
Some
suffragettes recognised the danger – Lillian Lenton amongst them. She said, “the
rule was that we must risk no one’s lives but our own, and if you take a bomb somewhere,
however great the precautions you take to see that it doesn’t damage anybody
but yourself, you can’t be quite one hundred per cent sure. So I didn’t really
approve of the bombs.” Even so, Lillian Lenton once told a magistrate that it
was her goal to burn two houses a week.
The story of Bristol's suffragette years |
Indeed,
the Pankhursts were so determined to develop militant tactics that they refused
to consider running the WSPU on democratic lines, which they thought would
hinder the militant campaign. This, together with other differences, led to a
number of women leaving the WSPU to form the Women’s Freedom League in 1907.
The WFL described itself as a militant organisation, but one which did not
endorse attacks on people or property. As well as deputations to the House of
Commons, their more well-known actions included women chaining themselves to
the grille in the Ladies Gallery, dropping suffrage leaflets from an airship, and
a five-month picket of the House of Commons in 1909. Many also refused to pay
taxes, and in 1911 the WFL initiated a census resistance whereby women and
their supporters refused to complete their census forms.
By
contrast, the militant suffragettes of the WSPU increasingly spoke of their
struggle in traditional militaristic terms. They were fighting the “woman’s
war”; engaged in “guerrilla warfare”. In
prison, Mrs Pankhurst said, “I look upon
myself as a prisoner of war”, and “prison...[is] a battleground”. The
suffragettes, she said, had “declared war on the peace of England”. “The militants
are not desperate, driven, frantic women,” said Christabel, “They are soldiers
with a soldier’s high and gallant heart, with a soldier’s joy in battle, with a
soldier’s cool brain, steady courage, and iron will.”
And
that’s why I don’t find it all that surprising that Mrs Pankhurst, Christabel Pankhurst
and other women of the WSPU threw themselves behind the war effort in 1914. They’d
been talking the language and acting out the motions of war for years. They
became ultra-jingoist. They called for the withholding of the vote from conscientious
objectors, demanded compulsory national service for women, the revocation of naturalization
certificates from people of or related to enemy ‘aliens’, and their removal
from key posts. They opposed any suggestion of a negotiated peace – the war
should only end when Germany was smashed – and their followers handed out white
feathers to men who weren’t in uniform.
The
leap from militancy to militarism was not perhaps such a great one – and it
came a step closer with every incendiary device the suffragettes planted.
For information about The Bristol Suffragettes (SilverWood Books, 2013) see http://www.lucienneboyce.com/suffragettes/
Available on Amazon UK
Hi Lucienne, I am doing some concentrated research on Lilian Lenton at the moment. I came across this quotation above:
ReplyDelete'Some suffragettes recognised the danger – Lillian Lenton amongst them. She said, “the rule was that we must risk no one’s lives but our own, and if you take a bomb somewhere, however great the precautions you take to see that it doesn’t damage anybody but yourself, you can’t be quite one hundred per cent sure. So I didn’t really approve of the bombs.” Even so, Lillian Lenton once told a magistrate that it was her goal to burn two houses a week.'
Would it be at all possible for you to tell me the source from which you found Lilian's quotation, and even perhaps recommendations of very useful sources about her or with things she said? I apologise for bothering you but would be so grateful if you could help me as soon as possible.
Best wishes
Helena Korner
I am so sorry I missed this comment. I hope you get this reply. The source is a recording of a 1960 interview with Lilian Lenton which is in the London Museum (or was when I listened to it). You can also hear her speak on the BBC Archive http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/suffragettes/
DeleteThis is brilliant. Any chance you could point me in the direction of a source about the Macclesfield incident you mention? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI am so sorry I missed this comment, I hope you get this reply. The source for the Macclesfield incident - a bomb hoax at the railway station - is The Guardian 16 May 1913.
Delete