Frederick
Lawrence,
the son of Alfred Lawrence, was born in London
on 28th December 1871. His wealthy parents were Unitarians
and members of the Liberal Party. Frederick
was educated at Eton and Trinity
College, Cambridge, where he achieved a Double First and became
President of the Union.
At university Lawrence was influenced by the ideas of Alfred Marshall,
who argued
that the knowledge of economics should be applied to help the poor.
While studying to become a lawyer, Lawrence gave free legal advice
at the Nonconformist settlement
Mansfield House in the slums of East London. He also worked
with Charles Booth collecting information
on poverty in the area (Life and Labour of
the People, Volume IX).
While working with the poor Frederick Lawrence
met the social worker, Emmeline Pethick.
The couple fell in love but Emmeline refused to marry Frederick because
he did not share her socialist beliefs. It was not until 1901, when
Frederick had been converted to socialism,
that Emmeline agreed to marry him. On marriage, he added his wife's
name to his own.
In 1901
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence became
the owner of The Echo, a left-wing
evening newspaper. He recruited friends from the socialist movement
such as Ramsay MacDonald and H.
N. Brailsford to write for the newspaper. Frederick also published
and edited the monthly, Labour Record and
Review.
James Keir Hardie introduced Frederick
and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence to Emmeline
Pankhurst. As a result Emmeline joined the Women's
Social and Political Union (WSPU). The organisation did not allow
men to become members but Frederick used his legal training to represent
the WSPU in court.
In 1907 Frederick and Emmeline started the journal Votes
for Women. The Pethick-Lawrence's large home in London
became the office of the WSPU. It was also
used as a kind of hospital where women made ill by their prison experiences
could recover their strength before embarking on further militant
acts. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence served
six terms of imprisonment for her political activities during this
period.
In 1912 the WSPU
organised a new campaign that involved the large-scale smashing of
shop-windows. Frederick and Emmeline both disagreed
with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst
ignored their objections. As soon as this wholesale smashing
of shop windows began, the government ordered the arrest of the leaders
of the WSPU. Christabel escaped
to France
but Frederick and Emmeline were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine
months imprisonment. They were also successfully sued for the cost
of the damage caused by the WSPU.
After
Frederick and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence
were released from prison they began to speak openly about the possibility
that this window-smashing campaign would lose support for the WSPU.
At a meeting in France,
Christabel told Emmeline
and Frederick about the proposed arson campaign.
When Emmeline and Frederick objected, Christabel arranged for them
to be expelled from the the organisation.
Pethick-Lawrence
was opposed to Britain's involvement in the First
World War and joined with E. D. Morel,
Arthur Ponsonby and Charles
Treveylan to form the Union
of Democratic Control (UDC). Over the
next couple of years the UDC became the leading anti-war organisation
in Britain.
Pethick-Lawrence was treasurer of the Union
of Democratic Control (UDC) and in the spring of
1917 was chosen as the organisation's candidate in the South
Aberdeen by-election. Pethick-Lawrence obtained only 333 votes
whereas the government representative won with 3,283 votes. Although
he was forty-six years old, the government attempted to conscript
Pethick-Lawrence in 1917. He refused but instead of being imprisoned
he was assigned to a farm in Sussex until the end of the war.
In the 1923 General Election Pethick-Lawrence
won the Leicester seat for the Labour
Party. He had the satisfaction of beating his old political opponent,
Winston Churchill. Although an expert
on economics, Pethick-Lawrence was a poor orator and he failed to
shine in debates in the House of Commons.
As a result, he was not given a post in the 1924 Labour Government.
After the Labour Party victory in the 1929
General Election, Ramsay MacDonald
appointed Pethick-Lawrence as Financial Secretary under Philip
Snowden. Pethick-Lawrence disagreed with Snowden's decision to
cut public spending and in 1931 resigned from
the government. Like most Labour MPs who opposed MacDonald's National
Government, Pethick-Lawrence lost his seat in the 1931
General Election.
Pethick-Lawrence returned to the House of Commons
in 1935 and following the 1945 General Election,
Clement Attlee appointed him as Secretary
of State for India. Along with Stafford Cripps,
Pethick-Lawrence was involved in the negotiations that took place
in India during 1947. When Indian Independence was achieved, Pethick-Lawrence
served as chairman of the East and West Friendship Council.
After the death of Emmeline
Pethick-Lawrence in 1954, Pethick-Lawrence married Helen
Craggs, a former leading figure in the WSPU.
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence died on 10th September, 1961.
(1) In his autobiography, Fate
Has Been Kind, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence described his time at
Eton College.
I was in some ways more childish, and in some ways more grown-up,
than my schoolmates. Completely ignorant as I was of their world,
I was shocked at the language used by the boys. Their devices to shirk
work and deceive the masters seemed to me silly and immoral. Though
I remember having a fight with a boy soon after I got there, in general
I failed to stand up for myself, and therefore could be bullied with
impunity. I was frankly bored with the way the classics were taught,
and I found myself in agreement with a remark, made by one of the
boys, that hard work was systematically discouraged at Eton.
Latin and Greek occupied most of our time and I found them deadly
dull. No doubt at that age my mind was most sterile soil in which
to implant the seeds of literature. But I cannot help thinking that
the worst method was adopted of arousing our interest. If we were
doing a Greek play, for instance, we got through some 20 lines only
in each lesson; and all the stress was placed on our knowing the cases
of the nouns and tenses of the verbs. At this rate we scarcely ever
completed the play before the end of the 'half'. Even the literal
meaning of the sentences generally escaped me, and of the tremendous
human issues of the drama I never had the foggiest notion. I suspect
that only a tiny minority of my class-mates would have a different
tale to tell.
On March 18 (1891) the new Lower Schools were opened and a statute
of Queen Victoria was unveiled by the Empress Frederick. The Queen
herself also came in person to the ceremony. The captain of the school
was given an address to present to the Queen, and I had one to present
to the Empress.
Another illustrious visitor to whom I was presented was the Rt. Hon.
W. E. Gladstone. He came to Eton to lecture on Homer, a relaxation-subject
in which he took great interest, though his views on it were considered
by the orthodox to be unsound. The headmaster invited me to dine with
him and I remember, talked a great deal throughout the meal about
the merits of sliding seats in the school boats. He was already in
advanced years and was evidently rather deaf, as he occasionally made
asides to his wife in audible tones which we were not intended to
overhear. But his eye was still keen and his face bespoke a personality
accustomed to make decisions and to be obeyed.
(2) In 1899 Frederick Pethick-Lawrence
worked with Charles Booth in his study Life
and Labour of the People.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century wealth had multiplied
enormously in the British Isles. Mass production as we know it today
had scarcely begun, but large-scale competitive industry working at
feverish pressure was turning out an ever-increasing stream of communities.
The wealth was abominately distributed. A few 'captains of industry'
made great fortunes. Many more of the upper middle class had incomes
which enabled them to live in comfort in town and country houses and
travel to the Continent. But at least a third of the people lived
miserably. They worked long hours.
Their food, even when sufficient, was monotonous and of poor quality.
Their clothes were generally ill-fitting and, from long use, threadbare
and dirty. Their houses were in mean streets, badly built, and frequently
verminous. Worst of all, they had no security. Accident, sickness
or a spell of unemployment plunged them into dire poverty and debt.
Old Age broke up their homes; and husbands and wives, who had up and
then fulfilled their marriage vows to cherish one another, found that
the workhouse anticipated death in tearing them apart.
(3) While
working in London Frederick and Emmeline
Pethick-Lawrence became very friendly with Keir
Hardie.
My wife and I saw a great deal of Keir Hardie in those days; for he
had rooms in a tiny house in an old-world court behind Chancery Lane,
and he often dropped in to see us in Clement's Inn. Closer acquaintance
confirmed the impression I had formed when I met him for the first
time at Mansfield House. He was, in fact, the exact opposite of the
uncouth and unpractical iconoclast, which those whose privileges he
threatened painted him. He was the most sensitive person I have ever
known in my life, and if he was unconventional it was because he had
to be, in order to achieve his purpose.
As for the other charge that he was unpractical, it is true that he
dreamed dreams of a more just world. But a very large number of those
dreams have already come true; and if any man is entitled to be accounted
the principal architect of the better order it is he. He founded the
I.L.P. and from it built up the Labour Party and inspired both with
his spirit. At the time his worth was only appreciated by a few, and
I am happy to have been one of the number.
(4)
In 1906 Frederick Pethick-Lawrence became involved in the struggle
by the WSPU to win the vote for women.
The
principal motive of men's opposition to woman suffrage was undoubtedly
fear of the use to which women would put the vote if they got it.
Men, it was said, were governed by reason, women by emotion. If once
the franchise were thrown open to women, they would speedily obtain
a majority control and force an emotional policy on the country. In
particular it was said (though less openly) that on sex matters women
were narrower and harder than men; and that if they were given power
they would impose impossibly strict standards of morality, and endeavour
to enforce them by penalties for non-observance. A further fear was
that, if women came to share the political, intellectual, and occupational
life of men they would lose their special charm and attraction. A
slightly different motive was the innate love of domination. This
was sometimes expressed in the blunt rejoinder: "Votes for Women,
indeed; we shall be asked next to give votes to our horses and dogs."
(5)
In his book, Fate Has Been Kind, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence
explained the role he played in the WSPU.
That autumn (1906) saw, the beginning
of the Monday afternoon 'At Homes', which went on continuously year
in year out during the militant campaign. They were intended principally
for women, but men were not excluded. Strategy was explained, militant
demonstrations were announced, a collection was taken and members
were enrolled. I generally came and sold literature - books, pamphlets
and, later, the Votes for Women newspaper. When the attendance
grew too big to be accounted in the office in Clement's Inn the venue
was changed to the Portman Rooms in Baker Street, and later to the
Queen's Hall.
At the end of October 1906 events occurred which brought me into far
closer association with the movement. My wife was arrested. She had
gone, with other members of the Women's Social and Political Union
to the House of Commons on the day that Parliament opened; and in
accordance with a preconcerted plan she had jumped up on to one of
the seats in the Central Lobby and started to address the M.P.s and
others who were present. Pulled down and bundled out into the street,
along with a number of other women who had made a similar protest,
she had tried to re-enter the House and had been taken into custody.
I went with her to the Court next morning, and she surrendered to
her bail, together with nine other women, including Mrs. Cobden Sanderson,
daughter of Richard Cobden. The magistrate bound them all over to
enter into their own recognizances to keep the peace for six months.
This they unanimously refused to do. In default, they were committed
to prison for two months. They were accordingly packed off the Holloway.
I determined at once that during my wife's absence her side of the
work should not suffer. I agreed to look after the finances, and at
a public meeting that very afternoon I made an appeal for funds. By
way of setting the ball rolling I promised to contribute £10
for every day of her imprisonment.
(6)
In 1912 Frederick Pethick-Lawrence was arrested and imprisoned for
conspiracy.
I
too
adopted the hunger-strike. The first day I was all hot and bothered
about it and got a headache and slept badly. The second day I took
myself in hand and found out that what usually passes for hunger is
better described as the 'food habit', and that if not appeased it
soon passes away. I slept well that night. The third day the authorities
discovered what I was doing and carried me away to hospital and told
me that they were going to feed me by force.
The head doctor, a most sensitive man, was visibly distressed by what
he had to do. It certainly was an unpleasant and painful process and
a sufficient number of warders had to be called in to prevent my moving
while a rubber tube was pushed up my nostril and down into my throat
and liquid was poured through it into my stomach. Twice a day thereafter
one of the doctors fed me in this way. I was not allowed to leave
my cell in the hospital and for the most part I had to stay in bed.
There was nothing to do but to read; and the days were very long and
went very slowly.
(7)
In 1912 Frederick and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence
were expelled from the Women's Social and Political
Union.
Mrs.
Pankhurst invited us to her room. She then told us that she had decided
to sever our connection with the WSPU. We saw, then, that the breach
between ourselves and the Pankhursts was complete and irrevocable.
There was, further, no appeal against our exclusion from the WSPU.
Mrs. Pankhurst was the acknowledged autocrat of the Union. We had
ourselves supported her in acquiring this position several years previously;
we could not dispute it now.
Thus ended our personal association with two of the most remarkable
people I have ever known. In some ways they were widely different.
Christabel, with her girlish figure, her penetrating brain, her inexorable
logic, and her power of acute political analysis, appealed particularly
to the young of both sexes. Mrs. Pankhurst, with her warm Manx blood,
her rich experience of life, and her moving voice, whose modulations
she knew so well how to control, touched the hearts and won the sympathies
of those who would have been unaffected by a merely rational approach.
(8)
In his book, Fate Has Been Kind, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence
explained his immediate reaction to the outbreak of the First
World War.
My own personal attitude was highly critical. The war seemed to me
to have started on the Continent without any sufficient cause and
to mark a complete breakdown of statesmanship all round. I strongly
resented the clandestine way in which Sir Edward Grey had in effect
committed the British people in advance behind their back. But I to,
in spite of my loathing of war, felt that, granted the circumstances
as they were at the twelfth hour, a refusal to come to the help of
France and Belgium would have been a breach of faith.
(9) In 1914 Pethick-Lawrence
joined the Union of Democratic Control.
I joined the Union of Democratic Control and became its treasurer.
As its name implies, it was founded to insist that foreign policy
should in future, equally with home policy, be subject to the popular
will. The intention was that no commitments should be entered into
without the peoples being fully informed and their approval obtained.
By a natural transition, the objects of the Union came to include
the formation of terms of a durable settlement, on the basis of which
the war might be brought an an end.
At first we were able to hold public meetings everywhere and state
our case, but as time went on, an organised opposition was worked
up by a section of the Press, which represented us as opponents of
the brave men who were fighting the country's battles. Our meetings
in London were accordingly broken up. I remember one in particular
where, as chairman, I was thrown from the platform. In the middle
of the struggle a young soldier called out: "Don't hurt the old
man." I heard the epithet with some amusement. I was only 43.
(10)
Speech made by Frederick Pethick-Lawrence during the by-election in
South Aberdeen in 1917.
There is a choice between two policies. The first is peace by negotiation,
the second is going on with the war for months and months - perhaps
for years. Peace by negotiation does not mean going to the Kaiser
and asking what terms of peace he will graciously give us, and accepting
those terms. That would be peace by surrender. Peace by negotiations
means a peace in which Great Britain and her allies would insist upon
certain irreducible terms and come to a settlement with regard to
the others.
(11)
In his autobiography, Fate
Has Been Kind, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence explained why he refused
to be conscripted into the British Army.
It was not until the middle of 1918 that my age group came within
the Conscription Act and I was called up. I was then 46. Believing
as I did that the war could and should be brought to an end by a negotiated
peace, I could not very well go out to fight for Mr. Lloyd-George's
'knock-out blow'. I accordingly went before a tribunal in Dorking
as a conscientious objector. The Clerk to the Council told the tribunal
that he knew I had held my views for a considerable time, and the
military representative said that he did not particularly 'want this
man'. So I was awarded exemption, conditional on my doing work of
national importance, and work on the land was indicated.
(12)
Frederick
Pethick-Lawrence,
Fate Has Been Kind (1942)
The German High Command asked for an armistice, and at eleven o'clock
on the morning of November 11th, 1918, the order to cease fire was
given. In London as the hour struck the whole population by common
impulse left their workshops, their offices, and their houses and
came out on to the street. I mingled with the dense throng. There
was no sign of frothy exultation. The one thought appeared to be thankfulness
that the killing had come to an end, that loved ones could now return
home, that hatred could be banished, and the work of destruction was
ended, and the constructive rebuilding of the world could begin.
(13)
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence and Susan Lawrence
decided to resign from the government when they heard that Philip
Snowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided in 1931 to cut
unemployment benefits.
Susan Lawrence came to see me. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
of Health, was concerned with the proposed cuts in unemployment relief,
which she regarded as dreadful. We discussed the whole situation and
agreed that, if the Cabinet decided to accept the cuts in their entirety,
we would both resign from the Government.
At last I got my summons from the Prime Minster, and went to Downing
Street. We went in and were sat round a table. MacDonald proceeded
to address us. He gave a short account of the crisis, told us that
the Cabinet had broken up and that he was forming a National Government
with Conservative and Liberal colleagues. He closed the meeting abruptly,
saying he had important business to transact. As we filed past to
say good-bye, he detained me for a moment, and said he thought I might
be willing to stay with the new Government; but I declined the suggestion.
Available from Amazon Books
(order below)
