However towards the end of the 19th Century, many women tired of the slow progress of the suffragist campaign, and felt betrayed by the government for not giving them the vote after they supported them, and so formed a new campaign group, the Women’s Social and Political Union. They were known as the suffragettes. It was led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters. They felt they had tried every peaceful method available and had got nowhere. Therefore they felt they had to resort to extreme measures. In an extract from her book, Emmeline wrote:
“The argument of politicians and the Suffragists has always been that once public opinion swings our way then without any force at all women will be given the vote… but in 1906 there was a very large section of the public who were in favour of women’s suffrage. But what good did that do to the cause? We call upon the government to give us the vote but they didn’t. So, now we will fight for the cause”.
The extract explains how she believes she has been betrayed by the government, and why she believes that the suffragettes had to use violence in their protests. She explains how the politicians said once the majority of the public believes in women’s suffrage the right will be granted. They didn’t keep to their word and so Emmeline believes they need to “fight for the cause”. The main methods they used to catch the eye of the media were chaining themselves to railings, burning down churches, MPs houses, cricket pavilions and golf clubhouses, attacking politicians, refusing to pay taxes and vandalising artwork.
One of the most famous militant protests was that of Emily Davison. On the 4th of June 1913, Emily threw herself in the path of the King’s horse on the annual Derby, killing both herself and the horse. Found on her body were two large flags with the suffragette colours purple, white and green. The protest received a lot of publicity. The suffragettes said Emily Davison was “a brave martyr who died for her cause”, and praised her brave actions. However the suffragists thoroughly disapproved of the protest, and refused to acknowledge it in their magazine, ‘The Common Cause’. They believed actions like this made women look crazy and irresponsible. This example really shows the difference between the suffragist and suffragette’s methods.
Emmeline Pankhurst and Millicent Fawcett did not see eye to eye. Christabel Pankhurst believed:
“If Mrs Fawcett and my mother, Emmeline Pankhurst, had worked together in the years before the First World War the House of Commons might have agreed to their demands”.
However with such contrasting opinions this would have been impossible. Emmeline Pankhurst wrote in her book:
“What good did all this violent campaigning do us? …For one thing our campaign made women’s suffrage a matter of news – it had never been that way before. Now the newspapers are full of us.”
However the Prime Minister at the time, Winston Churchill, wrote to the Manchester Suffrage Society saying:
“I have been annoyed lately by the action of certain suffragettes, in disturbing and breaking up my own meetings and those of other Liberal candidates. So long as this continues, it will prevent me from taking any more steps in favour of your cause”.
This is where the suffragist’s methods seemed to have a better effect. It is often debated whether the Suffragettes helped or hindered the campaign. However both groups carried on protesting until the outbreak of war in 1914, when their campaign was grinded to a halt in order to aid soldiers in the war. After the war was over women were honoured with the right to vote.
