Emmeline Pankhurst2

My old school : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_S…

"Founded in 1871 by the suffragist Frances Mary Buss, who also founded North London Collegiate School, the Camden School for Girls was one of the first girls' schools in England. A grammar school for much of the 20th century,"

British suffragettes were mostly women from upper and middle-class backgrounds, frustrated by their social and economic situation. Their struggles for change within society, along with the work of such advocates for women’s rights as John Stuart Mill, were enough to spearhead a movement that would encompass mass groups of women fighting for suffrage. Mill had first introduced the idea of women’s suffrage on the platform he presented to the British electorate in 1865.[6] He would later be joined by numerous men and women fighting for the same cause.

The term "suffragette" was first used as a term of derision by the journalist Charles E. Hands in the London Daily Mail for activists in the movement for women's suffrage, in particular members of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU).[7] But the objects of the intended ridicule gladly embraced the term saying "suffraGETtes" (hardening the g) implied not only that they wanted the vote, but that they intended to get it as well.[8]

The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, which was founded in 1897, formed of a collection of local suffrage societies. This union was led by Millicent Fawcett, who believed in constitutional campaigning, like issuing leaflets, organising meetings and presenting petitions. However this campaigning did not have much effect. In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst founded a new organisation, the Women's Social and Political Union. Pankhurst thought that the movement would have to become radical and militant if it was going to be effective. The Daily Mail later gave them the name "Suffragettes".[9]

Some of the techniques, especially hunger strikes, were learned from Russian exiles from Czarism who had escaped to England.[10] Many suffragists at the time, and most historians since, have argued that the militant suffragettes' actions actually damaged their cause.[11] Opponents at the time saw evidence that women were too emotional and could not think as logically as men.[12][13][14][15][16]

Early 20th century in the UK[edit]

1912 was a turning point for the British suffragettes as they turned to using more militant tactics such as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and occasionally detonating bombs.[17] This was because the Prime Minister at the time, Asquith, nearly signed a document giving women (over 30 and either married to a property-owner or owning a property themselves) the right to vote. But he pulled out at the last minute, as he thought the women may vote against him in the next General Election, stopping his party (Liberals) from getting into Parliament/ruling the country.

One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King's horse Anmer at the Epsom Derby of June 4, 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pin a "Votes for Women" banner on the King's horse or not.[18] Many of her fellow suffragettes were imprisoned and went on refused food as a scare tactic against the government. The Liberal government of the day led by H. H. Asquith responded with the Cat and Mouse Act.

Imprisonment[edit]

In the early twentieth century until the first World War, approximately one thousand suffragettes were imprisoned in Britain .[19] Most early incarcerations were for public order offenses and failures to pay outstanding fines, with the first suffragettes – Christabel Pankhurst (daughter of Emmeline Pankhurst) and Annie Kenney – imprisoned in October 1905.[20] While incarcerated, suffragettes lobbied to be considered political prisoners; with a designation as political prisoners, suffragettes would be placed in the First Division as opposed to the Second or Third Division of the prison system, and as a political prisoner would be granted certain freedoms and liberties not allotted to other prison divisions, such as being allowed frequent visits and writing books or articles.[21] However, due to a lack of continuity between the different courts, suffragettes would not necessarily be placed in the First Division and could be placed in Second or Third Division, which enjoyed fewer liberties and were for non-political prisoners.[22]

This cause was taken up by the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a large organisation in Britain, that lobbied for women’s suffrage led by militant suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst.[23] The WSPU campaigned to get imprisoned suffragettes recognized as political prisoners. However, this campaign was largely unsuccessful. Citing a fear that the suffragettes becoming political prisoners would make for easy martyrdom,[24] and with thoughts from the courts, and the Home Office that they were abusing the freedoms of First division to further the agenda of the WSPU,[25] suffragettes were placed in Second Division, and in some cases the Third Division, in prisons with no special privileges granted to them as a result.[26]

Hunger strikes[edit]

Following the refusal for suffragettes to be recognised as political prisoners, many suffragettes began to stage hunger strikes while they were imprisoned. The first woman to refuse food was Marion Wallace Dunlop, a militant suffragette who was sentenced to be imprisoned for a month in Holloway for vandalism in July 1909.[27] Without the consultation of suffragette leaders such as Pankhurst,[28] Dunlop refused food as a protest for being denied political prisoner status; following a 91-hour hunger strike, and for fear of her becoming a martyr for the suffragette cause,[29] the Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone made the decision to release her early on medical grounds.[30] Dunlop’s strategy was adopted by other suffragettes who were incarcerated.[31] Soon, it became a common practice for suffragettes to refuse food in protest to not being designated as political prisoners, and as a result they would be released after a few days and return to the "fighting line.”[32]

After a public backlash regarding the prison status of suffragettes, the rules of the divisions were amended. In March 1910, Rule 243A was introduced by the Home Secretary Winston Churchill, and this allowed for prisoners in Second and Third division to be allowed certain privileges of the First Division, provided they were not convicted of a serious offense, effectively ending hunger strikes for two years.[33] Hunger strikes began again when Pankhurst was transferred from the Second Division to the First Division, inciting the other suffragettes to demonstrate regarding their prison status.[34]

Militant suffragette demonstrations subsequently became more aggressive,[32] and the British Government took action. Unwilling to release all the suffragettes refusing food in prison,[31] in the autumn of 1909, the authorities began to adopt more drastic measures to manage the hunger-striking suffragettes.

Force feeding[edit]

In September 1909, the Home Office became unwilling to release the hunger-striking suffragettes before their sentence was served.[32] Suffragettes became a liability because if they were to die in the prison’s custody, the prison would be responsible for their death. Therefore, prisons began the practice of force feeding the suffragettes through a tube, most commonly a nostril or stomach tube or a stomach pump.[31] The use of force feeding had previously been practised in Britain, however, its use had been exclusively for patients in hospitals who were too unwell to eat or swallow food properly. Despite that this practice had been deemed safe by medical practitioners for sick patients, it posed health issues for the healthy suffragettes.[29]

The process of tube feeding was strenuous; without the consent of the hunger strikers, they were typically strapped down and force fed via stomach or nostril tube, often with a considerable amount of force.[35] Many women found the process painful, and after the practice was observed and studied by several physicians, it was deemed to have both short-term damage to the circulatory system, digestive system and nervous system and long term damage to the physical and mental health of the suffragettes.[36] Suffragettes who were force fed were also known to develop pleurisy or pneumonia as a result of a misplaced tube.[37]

Legislation[edit]

In April 1913, Reginald McKenna of the Home Office passed the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill Health) Act 1913, or the Cat and Mouse Act as it was commonly known. This act made the hunger strikes legal, in that a suffragette would be temporarily released from prison when their health began to diminish, only to be readmitted to prison when she regained her health to finish her sentence.[35] This enabled the British Government to be absolved of any blame resulting from death or harm due to the self-starvation of the striker, in addition to ensuring that the suffragettes would be too ill and too weak to participate in demonstrative activities while not in custody.[31] However, most women continued with their hunger strikes when they were readmitted to the prison following their leave.[38] After the Act was introduced, force feeding on a large scale was stopped and only women convicted of more serious crimes and considered likely to repeat these offenses if released were force fed.[39]