Members were encouraged to take part in the largest publicity stunt of its kind ever known. It was not until over 300 arrests had been made at the demonstration that women began to hurl stones through windows. When arrested at this point in time (before 1910) they offered no resistance. However when tried and prosecuted they refused to pay their fines. Suffragettes chose to be imprisoned and insisted on being categorised as political prisoners. Once imprisoned, they created further outrage by going on hunger strike. In 1909, Marion Wallace became the first hunger striker, other suffragettes soon followed her extreme example of protest. This led to the women being force fed- which consequently gained even more publicity.This was just the beginning of their protest which caused great outrage from both the press and the public- was this publicity good? Not according to the suffragists, they believed that the suffragettes were ruining their reputation and were putting all of their long hard work to waste. What has to be determined is whether the suffragettes extreme campaign helped or hindered their enfranchisement, was the vote becoming ever distant?
The suffragettes went on to perform acts that seemed like general vandalism and hooliganism, such as; breaking street lights, destroying golf courses, shattering windows and other generally rowdy behaviour. Due to mounting pressure on Parliament, in 1910 the Conciliation Bill was drafted. The intent of the bill was to embody a degree of women’s enfranchisement that would be acceptable to the greatest number of MPs across the board. The WSPU declared a truce on all militancy, thinking that now justice would be served. However, after nine months of peaceful activity- the Bill failed to pass. Discouraged, the WSPU resumed its tactics and they became even more extreme.
In 1913, the Franchise Reform Bill was immediately tossed out due to a ‘bureaucratic slip-up’ and the WSPU became dangerously frustrated. Years of struggling and self-sacrifice and the suffragettes were seemingly no closer to enfranchisement than when they started out. I believe that this is what led them to their most militant practices of protest yet. The arson attacks began in 1913, the WSPU set fire to pillar boxes, MP’s houses and even churches .”Destructive militancy”, wrote Emily Pankhurst had now broken down on an unparalleled scale. Obviously these actions were not taken well, the opinion of the government and probably many others was that, how is behaving in such a terrible, irresponsible manner helping their cause? Still the suffragettes went on becoming increasingly violent. On November 18th 1913 a group of suffragettes, angry with the situation, strained to get close to MPs in Parliament Square. They were held back by police, who were frustrated at controlling, what they saw as self-righteous women. For six violent, brutal hours what can only be described as a battle raged between police and women. These women were not unemployed, homeless or destitute but middle and upper class women of all ages. The police were not skittish about how to treat the women, “one woman I saw thrown down with violence three or four times in rapid succession. Every moment the struggle grew fiercer.” Said Emmeline Pankhurst. The men involved in incidents such as this treated the suffragettes appallingly, they tore at the women’s clothing to a point of sexual harassment. This mentality was evidently one of fear, and this fear was one of the biggest obstacles that women would have to overcome. Men had solely all power in society since society had begun, this was a priviledge that they were not prepared to give up willingly. Even other women shared this state of mind, they saw themselves as weak, and dependent on men making decisions for them. Men not only disapproved of the women’s cause, but also thought their methods ridiculous. “People who thoughtlessly destroy property and put lives in danger must be either wicked or totally unbalanced.” Said one MP. Why should they give up their power to a group of women who are performing illegal actions and using violence towards others? This was definitely one of the main reasons that women did not gain suffrage before the war.
Later in 1913 the measures women went to for their cause were becoming increasing drastic, the suffragettes threw rocks at the Houses Of Parliament and at the houses of elected officials, they severed telephone wires, blew up fuse boxes, placed bombs near the Bank of England and vandalised 13 paintings in the Manchester gallery of art. These actions culminated on June 4th 1913, when suffragette Emily Davison threw herself under the king’s horse at Tattenham course, resulting several days later in her death. The effects of Davison’s death were incredible, whether she intended to die for her cause and become the movements one and only martyr or whether she intended on making a protest once the horses had passed can never be known. But this, and actions before it by the WSPU, while attracting a great deal of publicity, had the opposite effect to what was intended. While many of the public, before the breakout of rampant militancy had supported the cause, the new actions resulted in disparagement from the government. Those against women’s suffrage in parliament used the terrorist actions that women had undertaken to their advantage in debate, citing the insane actions as no reason why women should gain the vote.
Parliament and the suffragettes thus reached a stale-mate situation, the more militant the WSPU became, the more reluctant parliament was to grant women the vote and the more firmly the government stood on the issue of women’s suffrage the more desperate the suffragettes became.
Another factor which stood in the way of women gaining suffrage was worry that men from all political parties had. If women could vote, they believed that they would vote for other women and end up in majority, again, it was an example of men fearing loss of control. Herbert Asquith from the Liberal Democrats was particularily against women gaining the vote. He thought, “Women are like candles in the wind,” meaning he saw women as weak minded and easily swayed. His stereotypical view was shared by many, while he was in power he very much stood in the way of women gaining suffrage.
At the time of the women’s battle for enfranchisement there were many other issues that were in the eyes of the country, a priority. In the run up to World War 1 there was the growing tension with Germany, which resulted in an arms race. Ireland were fighting for home-rule, for years in Ireland there had been conflict over the ruling of Ireland, they wanted to rule themselves. Not only was this a factor which took the governments focus away from the suffragettes plea, but if the government gave into the women for using violence then it would appear that they were condoning violence. This of course could have disastrous knock on effects in Ireland, The precedent would have been set and Ireland could quite easily follow with terrible effects.
There was also the matter of the coal strikes, which although may seem minor, in fact caused huge problems in many aspects of everyday life. Labourers were striking for more money, this meant that without coal there could be no cooking, cleaning or heating. Of course, no trains could run and ships were unable to sail. Also, very importantly, factories couldn’t process which meant thousands of people were out of work. These pressing issues combined with the lack of support from their campaign made women’s suffrage seem to be far less of a priority. After all, the problems in Ireland and with Germany were political, the coal strikes were economical, and women’s suffrage was merely a social issue.
The stalemate situation which had occurred between the suffragettes and the government did not last long. In 1914 World War 1 commenced. The WSPU patriotically suspended all militancy and in return all their prisoners were released. They along with many other women undertook jobs and responsibilities that would have been undreamt of before the war. This along with several other factors led to the enfranchisement of women in 1918.
Firstly there is the work which women contributed during the war. As most men had left to join the fighting, they left many responsibilities behind, women willingly took these on. They operated machines in factories, they ran hospitals, worked municipal offices, women in short, ran the country in the absence of men. It was in these ammunition factories that women were seen to be wearing boiler suits, women were wearing trousers. Obviously this was for practical reasons but it also portrayed a change in my opinion. Women had changed. They were driving buses and trains, they were running the education system, they were farming. These trouser wearing, hardworking women were a far cry from the delicate, “weaker” sex they were at the turn of the century. They proved their maturity and stability that that been contradicted by the similarly passionate wild actions of the suffragettes.
The WSPU completely changed its sights during the war, soon after war commenced, they changed the name of their paper from The Suffragette, to Britannia, this alone shows their drastic, patriotic change of heart. Then began their vindictive enlistment campaign, which was almost as passionate as their previous cause. Emmeline Pankhurst, leading this new protest reflected her view with the new paper slogan”For King, for country, for freedom.” The WSPU organised a demonstration, attended by over 30,000, after receiving a grant for their efforts from the government. The members carried banners with slogans such as, “We demand the right to serve.” And “For men to fight, women must work.” They had turned their protest for independence in a new direction, a direction in which they were far more likely to succeed and that also would hopefully raise them in the eyes of men.
The suffragettes began personal attacks on anyone that they saw as being anti-war, Ramsay MacDonald for example, an anti-war activist was accused as being, “more German than Germans.” It could be said that they were anti-anti-war as opposed to being just pro-war. Anyone against war could be imprisoned for years, the women were intent on bringing them to justice. These accusations were usually made trough the paper, the Britannia. They were equally brutal with their enlistment campaign, they practically forced men to join the army- creating mass hysteria, you were evil if you did not help in the war effort. Their pro-war antics became increasingly extreme, in 1917, the Pankhursts’ formed the women’s party, its aims were mainly war related in the form of a twelve point programme, it promised, “more vigorous war measures,” this would include; strict food rationing and the closure of non-essential industry to release labour for essential work, such as on the land and in ammunition work. The women needed to be economical in order to keep the country from failing, in which they succeeded. The women were so extreme in their patriotism that by not encouraging them, you were automatically not supporting the country. The position the women’s party had put itself in was extremely positive for women’s suffrage. Whether it was deliberate or not is unclear, but they now had an advantage.
The government was understandably grateful for the actions of women during the war. They had shown themselves as able to contribute positively to society and also proved they had the right to further responsibility. Although the government in later granting women the right to vote, was acknowledging the services of women during the war, this was not the only factor that led to women’s suffrage. The government also feared the return of militancy once the war had ended, this proves that the methods used by the WSPU prior to the war had some effect in granting women suffrage. Indeed some of it perhaps was opposite to the effect intended, but without this initial fight it is highly unlikely that women would have received the vote when they did. I believe women needed to go to extreme measures in order to get themselves heard. After all, who do we remember the suffragists or the suffragettes? I believe that their protest, although very much frowned upon and badly received, meant that the government not ignore their plea any more after the war. The government enjoyed the domestic quiet created by the suffragettes during the war, they were eager not to sink into the destructive acts of the WSPU once again. Instead of being insulted for wanting to rake part in government, women were praised for being patriotic. It would have been embarrassing for government to then turn their back on women.
Another factor which led to the enfranchisement of women was a problem that government came across during the war. When it came to an election they realised that the implications of war would effect it greatly. The voting system required one to have lived at one address for at least 12 months. Obviously as the majority of men who this would apply to were away at war, the government had a crisis. They had to change the system, the women saw their opportunity whilst the government was vulnerable and pressed for women’ votes to come about in the changes. So in the election of 1918, the representation of the people act was passed. This resulted in working class men gaining the right to vote. However, the conservatives knowing that they would vote for Labour needed to bring about more changes, in fear of losing seats. They devised a plan, women over the age of 30 could have the right to vote. They decided on this because they believed that most women who would vote would be middle and upper class, therefore they would probably not vote for Labour. Conservatives also knew that the vast majority of women would never vote for Liberal Democrats due to their betrayal prior to the war. Finally, conservatives hoped that by only allowing women over the age of 30 to vote, they would exclude any new radicals, it was thought that as you grow older, you grow more conservative. I believe this factor was significant in women gaining suffrage, but in a sense I wish it wasn’t, it seems to undermine women’s work and imply that it was worthless- which of course it wasn’t. Women’s behaviour was more influential than this factor and it was them who prompted this change.
Herbert Asquith had long been an enemy of the suffragettes. He was leader of the Liberal Democrats as well as being Prime minister during the beginning of the war. He had always been strongly against women’s votes, that was until he wanted their help again. During World War 1 Asquith made some bad leadership decisions which resulted in millions of lives being lost, at the Somme for example. In 1916 it was decided by his own party that he should stand down, David Lloyd George (previously Chancellor of the Exchequer) took up the post. Prior to his loss of power Asquith and other Liberal’s desperately tried to re-gain women’s support. He dramatically changed his opinion of women, or at least his outward opinion, “It is true that women cannot fight in the sense of going out with rifles, but they have aided in the most effective way. What is more, when the war comes to an end, have not the women a special claim to be heard on the many questions which will arise affecting their interests? I cannot deny them that claim.” This completely contradicts his previous view of women’s suffrage. To me, and probably to the women of the time, this comes across as a shallow attempt to gain their support so he would not lose power. However, his praise could do nothing but act in women’s favour and proved their cause more popular, nevertheless, this is not in my opinion a significant factor in gaining women’s suffrage.
During World War 1, the Trade Unions co-operated with employees (mainly women) and with the government. There were no strikes during the war- partly due to the fact that women had undermined the union by agreeing to lower wages but also the union did not want to strike for women’s conditions as they were only temporary. By 1918, the unions were stronger than ever, with 8 million members, which threatened more strikes. This combined with the danger of a political war in Ireland, after the Easter Uprising were perhaps factors which culminated to the granting of women’s suffrage. The political situation was undoubtedly relevant in the emancipation of women.
On January 10th 1918, the Reform Bill was passed by a considerable majority of 63 in British Parliament. Women had finally reached their goal. It may be thought that the sole reason that women were now granted enfranchisement was because of their work in the war, but this shallow presumption, that it was merely a reward does not take into account the many issues that together, resulted in women’s suffrage .More than 70 years of women demanding the vote and the militancy of the suffragettes served as an invaluable purpose. Without these, it could be (and was before 1913) supposed that women didn’t even really want the vote. The militancy destroyed this theory using the most public tool they had to hand, the press. With their violent conquests they constantly kept their cause in the papers, and the question of women’s suffrage fresh in the mind of public and of parliament.
The effects of women’s behaviour In World War 1 were not negligible in the enfranchisement of women. They raised women in the opinion of parliament and of all the men who remained in England during war. Perhaps more importantly, some were raised in the estimations of themselves, giving many a new sense of self worth causing them to see the necessity of the vote.
The militancy of the suffragettes it in my opinion the main reason why women’s suffrage was achieved in 1918, although before the war it angered many and appeared to delay the process of enfranchisement. It was necessary to threaten government out of a stalemate situation and into a state of action. However, without the pressures of war, the change in voting, the difficult political situation and the initial demonstrations by the suffragists, the women of today may still not have gained the right to vote, The Women of England, by throwing off Victorian ideals, created a strong, determined identity and a new place in our ever changing society for themselves.
