85 Millicent Garrett Fawcett to Societies affiliated to the NUWSS (marked confidential),
16 July 1910, WL; Tickner, The spectacle of women, p. 116.
86 VfW, 29 July 1910, pp. 724–5.
87 Daily News, Daily Mirrorand Manchester Guardian, 25 July 1910.
88 VfW, 29 July 1910, p. 724.
89 Ibid., p. 725; Clarion, 29 July 1910.
90 Rosen, Rise up women!, p. 137.
91 Kenney, Memories, p. 163.
92 VfW, 5 August 1910, p. 745.
93 EP to Mr. Scott, 16 August 1910, Scott Papers.
94 Ibid., 22 August 1910.
95 VfW, 19 August and 2 September 1910, pp. 769 and 786, respectively.
96 EP to Una Dugdale, 8 August 1910, Author’s Collection.
97 M. Ward, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington: a life(Cork, Attic Press, 1997), p. 71; C. Murphy,
The women’s suffrage movement and Irish society in the early twentieth century(Hemel
Hempstead, Wheatsheaf Harvester Press, 1989), pp. 63–4.
98 Form letter from EP to Dear Friend, 27 October 1910, SFC.
99 EP to Miss Sharp, 31 October 1910, Sharp Nevinson Papers.
100 Entry for 9 November 1910, Nevinson Diaries. See especially John and Eustance (eds),
The men’s share?for discussion of men’s role in the women’s suffrage campaigns.
101 VfW, 18 November 1910, p. 102.
102 E. Pankhurst, My own story, p. 180.
103 The treatment of the women’s deputations by the Metropolitan Police, Copy of evidence
collected by Dr. Jessie Murray and Mr. H. N. Brailsford, and forwarded to the Home Office
by the Conciliation Committee for Women’s Suffrage, in support of its demand for a public
enquiry(London, The Woman’s Press, 1911), p. 9. It would appear that many of the
police on duty on the 18th were drafted in from other areas of London, including East
End districts; C. R. Jorgensen-Earp, Speeches and trials of the militant suffragettes, the
Women’s Social and Political Union 1903–1918(Cranbury, New Jersey and London,
Associated University Presses, 1999), p. 122.
The way the sexual nature of the assaults has been commented on by some male histo-
rians is offensively sexist and gendered. Rosen’s,Rise up women!, p. 142, notes, ‘By
attempting to rush through or past police lines, these women were bringing themselves
repeatedly into abrupt physical contact with the police. That the police found in the
youthful femininity of many of their assailants an invitation to licence, does not seem, all in
all, completely surprising.’ Mitchell,Queen Christabel, p. 160, writes, ‘Clothes were ripped,
hands thrust into upper and middle-class bosoms and up expensive skirts. Hooligans, and
occasionally policemen, fell gleefully upon prostrate forms from sheltered backgrounds.
Wasn’t this, they argued, what these womenreallywanted?
Perhaps in some cases, and in a deeply unconscious way, it was.’
104 E. Pankhurst, My own story, p. 182.
105 Daily News, 19 November 1910; VfW, 25 November 1910, pp. 120–3; Morgan,
Suffragists and liberals, p. 71.
106 VfW, 25 November 1910, p. 127.
107 E. Pankhurst, My own story, p. 183.
108 VfW, 25 November 1910, p. 127.
109 C. Pankhurst, Unshackled, pp. 167–8.
110 VfW, 25 November and 2 December 1910, pp. 128 and 142, respectively.
111 Ibid., 25 November 1910, p. 129.
112 Ibid., 24 May 1912, p. 534; WSPU leaflet, Plain facts about the suffragette deputations
(London, The Woman’s Press, n.d. [c.1910]), p. 4.
113 VfW, 2 December 1910, p. 148.
114 Ibid., p. 148.
NOTES