Property

Sacrificed to the god of property

Comments Off on Sacrificed to the god of property
by New Philosopher on September 10, 2015

By Emmeline Pankhurst

It was at this time, February 1913, less than two years ago as I write these words, that militancy, as it is now generally understood by the public, began – militancy in the sense of continued, destructive, guerilla warfare against the Government through injury to private property. Some property had been destroyed before this time, but the attacks were sporadic, and were meant to be in the nature of a warning as to what might become a settled policy. Now we indeed lighted the torch, and we did it with the absolute conviction that no other course was open to us. We had tried every other measure, as I am sure that I have demonstrated to my readers, and our years of work and suffering and sacrifice had taught us that the Government would not yield to right and justice, what the majority of members of the House of Commons admitted was right and justice, but that the Government would, as other governments invariably do, yield to expediency. Now our task was to show the Government that it was expedient to yield to the women’s just demands. In order to do that we had to make England and every department of English life insecure and unsafe. We had to make English law a failure and the courts farce comedy theatres; we had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt business, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society, shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life.

That is, we had to do as much of this guerilla warfare as the people of England would tolerate. When they came to the point of saying to the Government: “Stop this, in the only way it can be stopped, by giving the women of England representation,” then we should extinguish our torch.

Patrick Henry, remember, was advocating killing people, as well as destroying private property, as the proper means of securing the political freedom of men. The Suffragettes have not done that, and they never will. In fact the moving spirit of militancy is deep and abiding reverence for human life. In the latter course of our agitation I have been called upon to discuss our policies with many eminent men, politicians, literary men, barristers, scientists, clergymen. One of the last named, a high dignitary of the Church of England, told me that while he was a convinced suffragist, he found it impossible to justify our doing wrong that right might follow. I said to him: “We are not doing wrong – we are doing right in our use of revolutionary methods against private property. It is our work to restore thereby true values, to emphasise the value of human rights against property rights. You are well aware, sir, that property has assumed a value in the eyes of men, and in the eyes of the law, that it ought never to claim. It is placed above all human values. The lives and health and happiness, and even the virtue of women and children – that is to say, the race itself – are being ruthlessly sacrificed to the god of property every day of the world.”

Excerpt from My Own Story, by suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst, 1914.

Photograph: US Library of Congress.

Comments are closed.


features

“But where there is danger, there grows also what saves.” Friedrich Hölderlin Attention is our most limited resource. William James proposed

read more

Dr Jane Goodall interviewed by New Philosopher’s editor Zan Boag in the ‘Nature‘ edition. Photo by Michael Neugebauer. Zan Boag:

read more

Earth has lost half of its wild animals in the last forty years. What does it mean to be philosophical

read more