Showing 6 results

Archival description
4 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects
PETH/7/3 · Item · c. 1912
Part of Pethick-Lawrence Papers

(Carbon copy.)

—————

Transcript

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence is of Celtic stock. Her forbears lived in Cornwall, {1} the rock-bound peninsular to which in ancient days came the intrepid Phoenician mariners to mingle their blood with the aboriginal inhabitants. But her father, a Bristol merchant, made his house in Weston-super-mare and she herself responded to the call to come to London to be a “Sister” in the West London Mission under Hugh Price Hughes and Mark Guy Pearse.

It was not until she was nearly 40 years of age that the little band of militant suffragettes unfurled their banner of revolt and at Keir Hardie’s suggestion sought her help. In a spirit of dedication she yielded to the entreaties of Annie Kenney, {1} the mill girl who had come from Lancashire with £5 in her pocket “to rouse London”.

Her Cornish love of freedom, her passionate anger at injustice, her sense of shame at the humiliating status of women, her desire to befriend the weak and oppressed all combined to force this choice upon her. She consented to become the treasurer of the new movement. Instinctively she realised that she was setting her foot upon an uncharted path. But she certainly could not have forseen† into what strange and unconventional ways it would lead her.

In fact she was on seven separate occasions to see the inside of His Majesty’s prison. She was to go through the hunger strike and to suffer the painful indignity of forcible feeding. As a treasurer she was to raise a campaign fund of over a quarter of a million pounds and to become known as the most seductive beggar in London. In all this she was sustained by a strong inner sense of mission; and she was fortunate in having what was denied to many others of the suffragettes, {1} the active support of her men folk—her father, her husband and other relatives and friends.

—————

The file number ‘2069’ has been written at the top of the first sheet in pencil.

MONT II/A/4/3/2 · Item · 12 Dec. 1911
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

India Office.—Refers to a long controversy which ended with a letter from the Secretary of the Advisory Committee to the India Office on the 8th, pointing out that the Committee’s reluctance to give advice limits their usefulness to contracting Departments. It is generally unsafe to rely on an agreement between masters and men in one firm, and the fact that this existed would not make it unnecessary for them to refer to the Committee for advice. On the 7th Sir Richmond Ritchie wrote to the Secretary of the Committee suggesting that, subject to any remarks by Sir George Askwith, the Secretary of State [Lord Crewe] believed that it would be unnecessary for the Committee to consider the case further. As the delay in obtaining a reply had been so long, they [the India Office] were anxious to see if the Advisory Committee could advise whether, in view of the present situation at Dowlais, they should be safe in accepting tenders from the firm. The Secretary replied conveying what amounts to a refusal of the Chairman to advise on this question, and asking if they still required an answer to the question of 23 August. Montagu was drafting a reply to the effect that he must require an answer, as he could obtain no advice from the Committee as to whether such answers could safely be dispensed with; but before he could send it Mr [J. M.] Robertson gave an answer in the House yesterday which he believes should not have been given before his own reply had been received. He understands that the Committee is aggrieved that the India Office has already permitted the firm to tender to them. He regrets this, and has reprimanded his Stores Department. The question is now likely to die, and he intends to inform Hardie that, as an arrangement has been made at Dowlais satisfactory to all parties, he has instructed that orders may again be placed with Guest, Keen, & Nettlefold at their Dowlais Works.

(This draft was made on the 11th, but the fair-copy was not sent till the following day.)

MONT II/A/4/3/1 · Item · 19 Oct. 1911
Part of Papers of Edwin Montagu, Part II

Board of Trade, Gwydyr House, Whitehall, S.W.—With regard to the position of Messrs. Guest, Keen, & Nettlefold at Dowlais, they have today received an interim report from the investigators in South Wales collecting information for the Fair Wages Advisory Committee. The report, however, merely refers to the inquiry’s difficulties in connection with the Dowlais District and the questions of rates of wages and ‘similar’ occupations. It would be useless for the Committee to consider such a report, but it will meet when the [final] report is received. Keir Hardie knows the inquiry is being held, and if he should put any formal questions in the House before a further report is received, it would be unreasonable for him to expect any reply beyond a statement that the inquiry is in progress and that the Committee will consider their report as soon as it is received.