The Suffragettes : Divisive Troublemakers or Unsung Heroines?
By the turn of the twentieth century, the issue of enfranchisement of women was nothing new. Under the
leadership of individuals such as Lydia Becker and Milicent Fawcett the National Society for Women’s Suffrage
or National Union of Women’s Social Societies all the way from 1897 had painstakingly built up support among
members of parliament by respectable constitutional means. Yet these organisations had failed to push the
issue into the forefront of the British political agenda. This changed dramatically with the emergence of
Emmeline Pankhurts’ Women’s Social Political Union (WSPU) in 1903. This organisation, disillusioned with
constitutionalism, would force the issue into the lives of every woman in Britain - mainly through usage of antidemocratic methods. Certainly, the adoption of mass protests, heckling, petty violence, shock tactics and
deliberate media attention seeking helped promote the cause of women’s suffrage. From the WSPU emerged
leaders, such as Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney who would come to represent the modern, crusading
woman, and thus inspire ordinary women around the country to further the cause by joining. The methods of
the suffragettes were new and innovative, sensationalising the cause and attracting thousands to its rallies and
protests. Yet, the true success of this movement can only be fully established by looking at governmental
response. By the start of the Great War, the suffragette movement had died down, indeed many of its leaders
underwent a transformation from dissident to patriot. By the time of the first enfranchisement of women, in
1918, the suffragettes were not on the political scene at all, even less so by 1928. Therefore, their role in the
actual passage of laws giving women the vote is debatable. Their major success appears to have been in
drumming up popular support for the cause through a variety of methods, thus making it eventually unavoidable
for the Government to address women’s suffrage.
Indeed, the adoption of militant anti-democratic tactics came some way from a realisation that passive
constitutional methods seemed totally ineffective. The campaigns of the militant suffragettes before 1914 are
so well known that we tend to regard them as an inevitable element, perhaps the only significant element, in the
struggle for the enfranchisement of women. However, this is not entirely the case. Constitutional campaigners
for women’s suffrage has won the argument for giving women the vote by converting a majority of MP’s, even
before 1900. As a result, the 1897 House of Commons began to vote in favour of bills introduced by backbenchers to give women the vote - this represented a massive achievement for the women’s cause which has
traditionally been overlooked amid the notoriety attracted by the anti-democratic suffragette campaign after
1905. This appears to cast new light on whether such militant tactics were altogether necessary and effective.
However, importantly, that the politicians sympathy has been aroused did not mean they regarded
enfranchisement as a matter of urgency. The Pankhurts’ organisation did not introduce any radical new ideas
into the issue of attaining the vote for women, their contribution was to force the issue upon politicians by
devising fresh tactics and attracting significant amounts of income into their campaigns. This independence
however came only as a result of the organisations split with the Labour Party. Emmeline originally believed the
new Labour Party would be the instrument of enfranchisement for women. Yet at the 1902 Conference a
significant resolution passed promoting adult suffrage, rather than female suffrage as a priority. Labour men
such as Philip Snowden and Glasier believed that a limited franchise to women would disadvantage the Party indeed, Glasier suspected the Pankhurts’ motives, “they want to be ladies, not workers.” To the new and
vulnerable Labour Party, fully endorsing a women’s suffrage movement represented a risky divergence, one
which they could do without. Therefore a gulf emerged between constitutionalist suffragists and those willing
to experiment with new shock tactics, in order to speed up the process of enfranchisement for women.
Christabel’s misgivings centred around Eva Gore-Booth and Esther Roper, ardent constitutional suffragists who
believed in a close alliance with Labour. Christabel remarked, “why are we expected to have such confidence in
the men of the Labour Party?” Teresa Billington, another woman attracted to the independence offered by the
WSPU commented that not one of the Labour Party’s advocates “were interested in winning women’s suffrage.”
Therefore, it was this disillusionment that lay at the foundation of the WSPU. The explanation for the
subsequent adoption of militant tactics lies to a large extent with the Pankhursts’ frustration with the Labour
Party. These women were already reacting against the constitutional forces for women’s suffrage, and had seen
how little it had achieved. However, for years the WSPU ran without any formal organisation, its only real
assets were the energy and enthusiasm of the Pankhurts. During 1903-04 the methods used by the WSPU
continued to be constitutional and thus not essentially different to the other established suffragists. The fact
that no formal plan of action had been devised goes some way towards proving the opportunist nature of the
whole organisation. Experimentation with anti-democratic methods first appeared in 1904, when Christabel
interrupted Churchill in Manchester’s Free Trade Hall. 1905 proved to be the key year when the WSPU leapt
into national prominence and veered sharply away from constitutional methods to the militant tactics for which
they were to become famous. This last point is worth highlighting, for it was the militant tactics adopted by the
WSPU which catapulted them into national significance, in effect they created the image of the romantic
struggle for women’s enfranchisement. The political climate helped Christabel and Emmeline exacerbate their
new tactics. The credibility of Balfour’s government had dwindled and expectations of an early general election
and Liberal victory escalated. Thus excitement was created surrounding local and national politics and aided the
WSPU in their push for recognition. Significantly, by 1905 its membership did not even exceed thirty,
therefore it had to make its presence felt beyond its numbers. Emmeline concluded that attempts to gain the
vote via back-benchers votes were futile, she twisted thinking towards more direct action that would force the
government to make note of the demands of the people. Indeed, the Balfour government had found time to
introduce bills dealing with levels of unemployment and the Scottish Churches all because it considered these
topics urgent - therefore it was the WSPU’s epiphany to make the issue of suffrage urgent and unavoidable.
This accounts for crucial importance in assessing the extent to which the suffragettes militant tactics
accounted for the eventual passage of bills enfranchising women in 1918 and 1928.
Christabel wrote in 1905 that the WSPU “was making no headway, our work was not counting.” This emphasises
a recognition that mere political passivity would not be enough to force the issue of women’s suffrage. Thus a
new wave of interventions were organised, most notable in the Free Trade Hall once again, where banners
exclaiming “Votes for Women!” were unfurled. It became apparent that these episodes succeeded in creating a
new momentum for the WSPU by adding a human, desperate struggle twist to women’s suffrage. Annie Kenney’s
release from prison following the episode was celebrated by a crowd of 2,000 - indicative of the furore the
WSPU had managed to build up. By provoking the authorities into creating martyrs of its members, the WSPU
was having a bigger impact than any women’s society had ever had. “Twenty years of peaceful propaganda had
not produced such an effect” wrote Hannah Mitchell, another of the new militant breed to join with the
Pankhursts. Furthermore, The Times in London (which had erstwhile chosen to ignore the women’s cause)
covered the events in Manchester. Examples such as this confirm the public success of the suffragette
movement - they succeeded in driving the issue of women’s votes into the public domain of ordinary citizens as
well as politicians. Additionally, heightened attempts to bait politicians at home and on the platform attracted
considerable sympathy, a telling remark concerning the nature of British government comes from the Daily
Mirror, “Parliament has never granted any important reform without being bullied.” This quote goes some way
towards justifying the anti-democratic measures employed by the suffragettes - that, in some way, making a
fuss over the issue would bring it to light in Parliament. The spreading of the movement to London must also be
considered highly significant - with this geographical shift from the North came a new social demographic
member, many of the suffragettes were now respectable middle-class ladies - which brought not only vital
financial income into the organisation but also home the argument that enfranchisement was wanted by all
classes of female.
However, this all-out militancy had severe drawbacks, it led to a sense of dictatorial reign by Christabel, leaving
no room whatsoever for any sentiments of constitutionalism. It was a full fronted attack upon the system which
had chosen not to include them, which sometimes meant the organisation actually attacked its own supporters
and politicians sympathetic to the cause such as Lloyd George. Over time this weakened the WSPU and the
militant doctrine alienated some of the organisations more well off members. Yet these respectable elements
within the organisation had to be catered for, such influx of finance enabled the Union to develop a machine
capable of taking on the major political parties. In order to sustain such a high level of organisation, it became
necessary to ensure the WSPU was constantly in the public eye. The Pankhursts felt obliged to employ new and
more radical forms of militancy in order to retain the impact of their campaign. In arranging more and more
deputations and protests, the WSPU was causing a huge political ripple. The response of the authorities played
into the hands of the suffragettes, for example in February 1907 after the Women’s Parliament, protestors
were confronted by mounted police - such heavy-handedness enabled the women to gain the moral high-ground
in their struggle. However, with the succession of Asquith as Prime Minister, the suffragettes prospects
deteriorated sharply. This single individual, it can be claimed, held back the tide of the militant campaign perhaps a less obstinate Prime Minister would have enacted enfranchisement sooner, but that would be to
speculate. What can be asserted however is that Asquith’s intransigence directly forced the suffragettes to
pursue increasingly radical techniques - therefore the best way to respond to Asquith was to offer
unmistakable proof that he was wrong in assuming women’s suffrage still lacked public support. This was
evidently shown in May 1908 when a crowd of 30,000 converged on Hyde Park. Asquith’s refusal to accept the
vociferous demands of this peaceful protest led Christabel to interpret this as proof that he was deaf to
purely peaceful pressure - Union leaders therefore agreed extended militancy was a necessity. Yet Asquith’s
strength of character underpins the period up-to Lloyd George’s coalition Government in 1916. Even when faced
with public disorder and violence, Asquith remained unshakable in his opposition to the women’s suffrage
movement. By 1910 the issue was resolved to a clash between the suffragette campaign and Asquith’s nonmoving. Even the introduction of the hunger strike in July 1910 made no change from the government’s position.
Christabel felt the hunger strike “has given us new means of entirely baffling the government.” Yet it did not even Asquith’s condoning of forcible feeding did not enrage public opinion enough to foster a change in the law.
Non-conformist Reverend Campbell wrote, “there is something extremely repugnant…in the knowledge that
women are being subjected to such violent indignities.” Furthermore, the crisis over the House of Lords in
December had distracted attention away from the suffragettes.
The suffragettes had certainly caught the nation’s attention, never more so than after Emily Davison’s suicide
at Epsom races in June 1913. Her actions indicated just how far the women were willing to go, and yet the fact
that it would take another 5 years for some women to become enfranchised speaks volumes for the overall
effect it had. The suffragette movement succeeded in sensationalising the votes for women campaign, it did
not succeed in bringing about immediate parliamentary change for the inclusion of women into the franchise.
The outbreak of war more or less finished off any momentum the movement had left by 1914. The cessation of
the militant campaign involved an admission that militancy had been no more successful in winning the vote than
constitutionalism. Emmeline and Christabel, the face of the WSPU, became allies of the establishment, whilst
Sylvia and Adela moved further to the Left. The suffragettes had forced the Commons to regard votes for
women as a serious matter, this fact cannot be disputed. But war carried such rapid social and political change
that by 1917 the issue of women’s enfranchisement appeared in a fundamentally different context to that of
the pre-war years. As men left jobs to fight, they were replaced by women. Women were thus doing kinds of
jobs that they simply had not done before, for example by April 1918 701,000 women were employed in
munitions. The War Office commented in 1916 that women “had showed themselves capable of replacing the
stronger sex in practically every calling.” The praise given to women on the home front marked a change in male
attitudes towards female enfranchisement. Instead of burning letter-boxes and throwing stones, they were
driving the economy of wartime Britain. When the Coalition government took power in 1916 Balfour, Bonar Law,
Lord Cecil and Selborne became Cabinet Ministers - all pro-suffragists, with Lloyd George becoming Prime
Minister, female enfranchisement’s old foe had at last been removed. Remarkably, Asquith in 1917 noted to the
Commons, “How could we have carried on the war without them?” Significantly, the war had changed his most
stubborn of minds, not eight years of suffragette agitation. Lloyd George remarked, “the war had had an
enormous effect upon public opinion…women’s work in the war has been a vital contribution to our success.” It is
possible to argue the war had a more significant impact upon the enfranchisement of women than the
suffragette campaign before it. One must recognise that there were more obstacles in the way of the
suffragettes, most notably Asquith, in order to make a fair judgement. By the time of the second
enfranchisement bill in 1928, Christabel had become a rejuvenated Christian, remarking in 1925, “it would be
undesirable to re-open the franchise agitation”. Emmeline’s late involvement with the Tory party undoubtedly
accelerated the promise made my Baldwin - and in April 1927 another 5.5 million female voters were added to
the franchise. However, there had been no anti-democratic methods used to press for a further extension of
the franchise, it had come as a natural progression of government policy. The WSPU neglected to develop a
broader feminist agenda on which to campaign after the vote had been won - this helps to explain why the
suffragettes failed to survive World War I and neither Emmeline or Christabel Pankhurst saw their future in
the women’s movement after 1918.
The suffragettes, along with their innovative anti-democratic methods, will always be regarded as the vanguard
of the woman’s right to vote. In 1936, Christabel was honoured with a DBE and six years earlier her mother’s
statue was unveiled along with a plaque honouring over 1,000 women who endured imprisonment for the
suffragette cause. Therefore there is some sort of popular legacy left behind the women and their methods.
However, in the context of the Bills in 1918 and 1928, their anti-democratic methods had long since ceased - it
was Britain’s involvement in the Great War which ushered in a new social phase for all British citizens, including
the right of women to vote. Yet the plaque and mere name of the Suffragettes will always have great resonance
in the formation of the popular conception that women should have the right to vote.
Bibliography
Andrew Rosen : Rise up Women
Susan Kingsley Kent : Making Peace : The Reconstruction of Gender in interwar Britain
Martin Pugh : The Pankhursts
Martin Pugh : Women and the Women’s Movement in Britain 1914-1999
Jane Marcus : Suffrage and the Pankhursts
Christabel Pankhurst : Unshackled : The Story of How we won the Vote
Posted by Harry Mackridge at 05:22