WSPU. By the time war broke out in 1914, women's suffrage had still not been won. Some historians argue that this was due to the militant and ultimately violent action used by Emmeline Pankhurst's WSPU;

the NUWSS' during its first couple of years, she decided to act even more drastically. Many

historians think that this was the largest mistake that Emmeline made, as to act more militantly

could have possibly cost her a good few years when trying to gain the vote.

After the WSPU's move to London in 1905, Emmeline believed that the campaign could now act

more radically and thus attract a bigger audience. With a new government in 1906, the WSPU

sought votes for women with 'more colourful and more commanding of attention than anything

ever before' [Emmeline Pankhurst - 'Votes for Women' by Belinda Hollyer]; the Pankhursts felt

convinced that any change that attracted more attention was a positive change because it would

allow the public and government to listen to what they wanted.

However, from one point of view the more militant the WSPU became, the more of a struggle it

became for them to put across their point. The movement became almost dependent on its

violence, from arson attacks to government buildings to even damaging buildings that the public

used daily, such as post offices and banks. Not only that, but even passive resistance, for

example chaining themselves to railings in Downing Street, resulted in having to use violence to

resist the police's action to try and arrest them. Even at this point they would refuse to pay any

fines and consequently were sent to prison ~ their persistance to steer away from any sort of

compromisation - despite Emmeline's well-known quote 'We are here, not because we are law-

 breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers' ["Said What?" website - Emmeline

Pankhurst] - was in reality apalling a significant percentage of the country. For example, statistics

from the House of Commons' votes for women's suffrage bills had indeed decreased by the end

of the 1900s' first decade: it had dropped in all by 18 votes in the space of 2 years [reference?].

Even though the amount of votes against the right for women's suffrage bills had slightly dropped,

too, as a whole the votes had become worse on the WSPU's behalf.

This never-seen-before movement of course attracted the media which was one of its key aims:

but by 1906 the Daily Mail referred the members as 'suffragettes'. This could give historians the

impression that the only way the WSPU was represented at that time was in a violent manner

rather than just determined campaigners - this inevitably swayed a significant part of the public

into thinking that they would be less able to negotiate with parliament, especially when compared

to the NUWSS.

In fact, it seemed as if the campaign was somewhat living up to the stereotype that women had

been given. First of all, some politicians felt the campaign lacked organisation which therefore

proved that if women could not handle this, then they definitely could not handle any politic

power. The militant campaign also supported MPs' claims that women were too hysterical and

emotional, and once again the WSPU image was often published in newspapers as showing this.

This situation could have also prevented women's success in gaining suffrage at this point as

their hysterical behaviour was reflected with rifts within the WSPU itself.

Its split with the WFL (Women's Freedom League) resulted in a rivalry between the two

organisations, and thus reflected badly on their violent outlook. What's more, even rivalry

between two of the Pankhursts stirred. By the time the campaign had had its first few years in

London, even Emmeline's daughter, Sylvia, had told Emmeline that her methods to win women's

suffrage were becoming too radical. Alongside this, Sylvia furthermore had political views that

were connected more with the NUWSS: '..in contrast to them she retained her interest in the

labour movement.' [Sylvia Pankhurst, Wikipedia]. If the Pankhurst family could not even agree,

then the people who witnessed this would be inclined not to.

I feel that the period between 1912-14 showed the bitterness between the 'suffragettes' and the

government at its height as a result of the WSPU's behaviour. Even though Emmeline Pankhurst

had said that she 'allow(ed) my members to act...on their own free will' ['Votes for Women'

Belinda Hollyer], members became so dedicated to Emmeline's cause that they became martyrs.

This period would have been all the more ideal for the members of the WSPU to reduce its

militant tacticts - for instance arson attacks - as, although the government had still not granted

women's suffrage, evidence could suggest that they were somewhat more willing to compromise.

For example, when martyrs refused to eat or drink when send to prison, 'the Cat and Mouse Act'

was introduced to stop the perpetual force-feeding and allow members to recover. Nevertheless,

the women were still willing to die for their cause, which not only made them look hysterical, but

also ironically made them look even weaker than if they had simply not have been arrested in the

first place.

Lastly, although the WSPU did not just involve violence in their campaigns at first - for instance

processions - it did attract large crowds, but this did not necessarily imply that they were

supporters, or even sympathetic!

On the other hand, some historians also argue that the impact of the WSPU's militancy was not

the main reason for lack of the women's movement's success ~ that it indeed reflected positively

on their action in several ways.

A first argument historians put forward is that the WSPU's consistancy of determination was

beneifical for its campaign, primarily because it threatened MPs to not put the issue aside and

also showed that they were serious with only one fixed goal -- the government as a result became

worried about what they would do next and how it would affect the country's economic status.

 Matyr Emily Davidson's death in 1913 - after she jumped out in front of the King's horse at

Britain's most famous horse race - could in fact be seen as effective for the WSPU as a whole,

because not only did her funeral have a turn-up of 1000s of people, - which could have shown

that many people were supporting the reason why she died: for women's suffrage - but the

tragergy certainly attracted the media and thus the public eye ~ not just as simply a story, but for

sympathy. It is believed by many historians that the WSPU's sympathy-gaining tactic attracted

more members to the group; certain MPs such as John Suart Mill backed up the campaign for

reasons connected with sympathy, too.

Although some historians feel that the 'suffragettes' had mainly middle-class members (as

mentioned earlier), other historians believe contrasting views which consquently gave the WSPU

campaign success to some extent as they continued to fight for women's rights to vote. Publicity

gained the WSPU new support, which widened the movement. Women were coming together for

the first time with others they would never even thought about speaking to before; doing things

that they never would have dreamed of. Strong evidence for this is during the Mud March of 1907

(bearing in mind that this was not a militant tactic, either): "Mud March" because of the weather

that day. In spite of heavy rain on the day that the open-air precession took place, 4,000 people

turned up for it - strong evidence of the members' sheer determination which, of course, proved to

the public how much the right for women to vote meant to them. To the public eye this was seen

as a revolution; therefore, it seemed a suitable time to grant women's suffrage.

A more indirect yet positive effect of the notion of the WSPU was that it ironically boosted the

NUWSS' campaign. This was due to the fact that because now the NUWSS felt that it had

competition, its leader - Milicant Fawcett - felt inclined to become more active to recruit more

members. This seemed to work: its membership grew from 12,000 members in 1909 to 50,000 by

1914.

In addition, there were other reasons for the WSPU's lack of success that became obstacles

when trying to acheive the vote that we need to take into consideration.

Firstly, it is fair to say that the WSPU did not resort to more violent methods of the movement at

first; yet the goverment would provoke and infuriate the women right from the early years of the

campaign. Many meetings arranged to be held in private halls by the WSPU were closed by the

police, the campaigners arrested and treated unfairly.

Moreover, in general the police did seem to treat the WSPU campaigners with disrespect ~

women were being treated extremely unequally after all this time. Men were literally dragging

women from their protesting grounds, often creating bruises all over the women before they even

reached the prison: the worst treatment of it all.

Inside the prison, the women were shocked by the condition of the cells, especially those

belonging to the middle class as it was a harsh contrast to home.

Then there was force-feeding. This was (and still is) a very contentious issue; the force-feeders

were supposedly only trying to help, but many feel that they went about it the wrong way

deliberately. Almost every women who was released from prison after experiencing force-feeding

described it as the worst experience of their lives. The women were 'held down by prison

warders...long tubes were twisted up their nostrils and forced into their stomachs for liquid food to

be poured down' [Votes for Women by Belinda Hollyer]. The only good outcome of it was that it

inevitably attract a good deal of sympathy towards the WSPU members.

An additional valid point for historians to include is that women undoubtedly needed a lot of

willpower to win over not just the minds but the hearts of those who stood in their way between

them and the vote. One of them was Asquith: the Prime Minster from 1908-1916. Ever since he

became Chancellor, he had not been in favour of the movement at all. Even after the earlier-

mentioned Mud March which was reputed as a "revolution", he remainded unmoved by the

movement, and consequently did not act on it. It wasn't until a good few months into 1915 that a

 meeting was held for he and Emmeline to discuss the WSPU's action - progress was very slow.

Even Queen Victoria was against the WSPU's notion, stating that women are '...what God

intended, a helpmate for man, but with totally different duties and vocations.'   It is believed that

Queen Victoria never became in favour of the movement.

In conclusion, after weighing up both sides of the argument, I believe that the perception that the

militancy of the WSPU resulted in a greater hinderance to the women's struggle to gain the vote

by 1914 to quite an extent. Indeed, 'militancy attracted publicity' [B. Whitefield, 'The Extension of

the Franchice]; however, many other historians such as 'Liddington suggests that the militant acts

'only attracted public interest, never mass support'' [H.L. Smith, 'The British Women's Suffrage

Campaign']. This is a key point to consider when regarding the impact of the WSPU's militancy

during that period.

Over 1,000 'suffragettes' were imprisoned in relation to the WSPU's demand for the extension on

women's franchise. Even though on the one hand it attracted some sympathy, statistics like these

prove that women were living up to their stereotype, and thus secured a justified argument that

women belong in "seperate spheres": the men connected with politics, work and war; the women

in their domestic sphere to raise their children and support their husbands. This hugely

contentious issue is still as controversial as ever when debating whether the main reason for the

WSPU's lack of success by 1914 was because of the movement's militancy.

Word count: 2444

Bibliography:

~'Votes for Women' by Belinda Hollyer   2003

~B. Whitefield, 'The Extension of the Franchice 2001

~H.L. Smith, 'The British Women's Suffrage Campaign' 1998