|The Suffragettes and their Effectiveness
By 1903 some women were disappointed with the rate of progress being made by the Suffragists and started a splinter group. Emmiline Pankhurst, a member of the Manchester branch of the NUWSS, with the help of her two daughters Christabel and Sylvia, formed the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU).
This was because the newspapers had lost interest in the issue of women’s suffrage and seldom reported meetings. In response, the WSPU adopted the motto ‘Deeds not Words’ and used aggressive campaign methods to breathe new life into the women’s suffrage issue.
When the Liberals won the 1906 general election it appeared that the new Prime Minister, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, might support them. In 1908, Asquith, who was very much against the women’s campaign, took over as Prime Minister and the Suffragettes effectively declared war on the government.
The Suffragettes intended to break the silence of the newspapers. They intended to keep the cause in the news, no matter what. This started during the 1905 General Election when Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenny went to a Liberal meeting in Manchester. Christabel said “I shall sleep in prison tonight”. During the meeting, they caused a disturbance by shouting ‘Votes for Women’, and were thrown out of the hall. They wanted to be arrested, so Christabel tried to assault a policeman. This worked and they were put in prison. Newspapers immediately took notice; the WSPU was nicknamed the Suffragettes and had achieved its first objective, publicity. To keep it in the news they had to keep providing new and more shocking stories to maintain the papers interest. Their campaign can be traced as a progression to achieve this:
Chaining themselves to railings
Put pepper in letters
Damage of things that men enjoy
Put acid on Bowling Greens
Put acid on Golf Course greens
Slashed the Rokeby Venus and other paintings
Jumped in front of the King’s horse at the Derby
Burning Ayr Racecourse Grandstand
Burning Perthshire Cricket Club Pavilion
Damage of private property
Burning Whitekirk Church
Damage of Government property
Burned Pillar boxes
Cut telegraph wires
Burnt and bombed stations.
Burning Leuchers Station
This progression was needed because their campaign became “old news” very easily. In “Virgins and Viragos – A history of women in Scotland from 1080 to 1980” published 1983, Rosalind k Marshall stated “Extreme tactics were taken up by the Scottish Suffragettes in 1912. Windows were broken; pillar boxes attacked and telegraph wires cut. An attempt was made to damage the Scott Monument. Kelso and Ayr race courses were set alight. A school in Aberdeen, a hall in Dundee, a laboratory in St Andrews and a station in Fife were severely damaged by fire. The Prime Minister was assaulted while playing golf at Lossiemouth. More and more respectable women went to prison. Once there, they went on hunger strike which brought them much suffering but which also aroused public sympathy.
Newspaper headlines from the time tell the same story..
1912, Attack on Aberdeen Minister, Rev. Forbes mistaken for Lloyd George
1906, Interruptions in the House of Commons by Women.
1906, Suffragettes Chain themselves to Railings at 10 Downing Street.
1913, Bowling Green marked with Acid.
1913, Shop Windows in Piccadilly smashed by Suffragettes.
1913, P.M. attacked by two Suffragettes on Lossiemouth Golf Course.
1913, Ashley Road School set on fire by Suffragettes
1913, Mansions burnt out.
1913, Bomb Explosions at Railway Stations.
1913, Raid on Picture Gallery.
In 1911 they stopped violence when they thought that the government would debate the issue in parliament. When no bill resulted, the Pankhursts reacted with outrage, claiming the Prime Minister had sabotaged the bill. As a result militancy was resumed and reached new heights in the years 1912 to 1914 and more and more suffragettes were put in prison.
The constant disruption and attacks on property led to arrests and court appearances. To gain maximum publicity Suffragettes refused to pay fines, preferring to go to jail. As far as the government was concerned they were common criminals who should be jailed as such. The women thought of themselves as political prisoners who should be allowed special privileges
When a person is jailed the government takes responsibility for their welfare and must release them at the end of their sentence as healthy as when they were put in prison. The suffragettes knew this and when they were jailed the only weapon they had was to stop eating and go on hunger strike.
The government had a dilemma; they did not want to give in to the women’s demands but they could not be responsible for the death of a Suffragette who would then become a martyr.
In July 1909, Marion Dunlop refused to eat and began a campaign of hunger strikes, designed to embarrass the government. At first the government let them go but this got them into trouble with people whose property had been damaged. They asked why some criminals should be treated differently to others.
The argument between the government and suffragettes was about public sympathy and newspaper headlines and the government was the first to make a mistake. Trapped between releasing the women or allowing them to die, the government began to force feed the prisoners but the methods used were frequently described as torture; giving the suffragettes the weapon of making posters and providing written reports of the barbaric treatment meted out to them.
In Scotland force feeding started in Perth prison where Doctor Fergus Watson, who had already used the methods elsewhere, was an officer. He was already responsible for the death of a suffragette in Perth prison from double Pneumonia, the result of food getting into her lungs. This led to a storm of protest. Miss Arabella Scott described her experience of being force fed in Perth Prison in the Suffragette Paper stating that “The wardress would then enter with the apparatus: extricate and hold me in position, e.g. flat on my back. Then the doctor greased the tube and inserted the gag. Then I would close my eyes and pray that I should have no feelings of resentment or anger towards those who caused me pain. I always dreaded the insertion of the tube, which was accompanied by dry retching and choking sensations. On removal of the gag my head was seized, my jaws and lips held tightly together. Sometimes the food would be returned into my mouth, and unable to escape would burst through my nose. Then my nose would be pinched, and I was ordered to swallow it again.
Mary Leigh also remembered “On Saturday afternoon the wardresses forced me onto the bed and two doctors came in with them. A nasal tube was inserted. It is two yards long with a funnel at the end; there is a glass junction in the middle to see if the liquid is passing. The tube is put up the left and right nostril on alternate days. Great pain is experienced, both mental and physical. The drums of the ears seem to be bursting and there is a horrible pain in the throat and breast. The tube is pushed down about twenty inches. I have to lie on the bed, pinned down by two wardresses. One doctor stands at arm’ length and the other doctor forces the other end up my nostrils. The after effects are a feeling of faintness in the diaphragm or breastbone, in the nose and the ears. I was very sick on the first occasion after the tube was removed. I am fed this way very irregularly.
The government could not let this continue and had to find a new method of forcing women to complete their sentences without risking the lives of its prisoners.
Their answer was to pass the Prisoners Temporary Discharge Act, 1913, which came to be known as the Cat and Mouse Act. This Act put a prisoner in prison where she would stay until her hunger strike reached dangerous level. She would be released until she was fit again and rearrested to complete her sentence. Thus a 30 day sentence could take up to 6 months to complete. At least that was the theory, but released women did not wait quietly for the return of the police and hid. Police were bogged down searching for them. It seemed both sides were playing with each other, hence the nickname, the Cat and Mouse Act.
This Act did succeed in making suffragettes complete their sentences without the government losing more public sympathy. The suffragettes did continue to produce posters showing what was happening but they did not have the same impact as those showing women being force fed.
Throughout this period both sides were ‘painting themselves into a corner’ where it was going to be difficult for either to back down in any way and lose face to the other side.
The only good thing about the situation was that throughout this escalation of violence and responses, no one had been killed. Should this happen it could take the situation to a completely new level.
The Effectiveness of the Suffragettes
The militant campaign had 3 positive effects. Up to 1908 it achieved much publicity which made it easier to raise funds for the cause. It forced anti suffragists into a more public stance which showed the power of the women’s arguments and finally it caused many women to join the suffragists whose membership rose from 12,000 to 50,000 as many women, who did not wish to be associated with the suffragettes could not help being moved by their example and chose to express their feelings by joining the non militant organization.
It is, therefore, not true to say that that the suffragette campaign destroyed all support for the cause of women’s suffrage. Although support for the cause decreased it can be argued that were it not for the suffragette campaign, the Liberal government would not even have discussed women’s suffrage before World War One.
Some Historians support the statement that the militant campaigns of the Suffragettes did delay women’s suffrage as they believe that such reckless tactics only enforced male opinion that women were too irresponsible to vote. However, others argue that the tactics of the Suffragettes were not the only reason for the delay of votes for women and that other factors contributed to this such as the division in the women’s suffrage movement, the lack of support of working class women in the movement, the failure of the Conservatives or Liberals to support women’s suffrage from fear of losing political advantage, the fact that Prime Minister Asquith was against votes for women and had more pressing issues such as Ireland to deal with, the fact that the majority of males and many females did not support votes for women and that the outbreak of World War 1 war all contributed to the delay women’s suffrage.
The Vote and Historical Argument.
Historians disagree about the importance of the suffrage campaigns in giving women the vote and the importance of World War One in giving women the vote.
The following quotes will give you a flavour of the debate.
Commenting on the militant suffragette campaign, the historian Leah Leneman has said that……..it was the suffragettes who brought colour and drama to the movement…….Whether one agreed or disagreed with militant tactics, they kept the suffrage campaign in the news, and more and more women flocked to join the cause.
Other historians, like Martin Pugh, feel that the militant campaign was not important.
………by 1914 the Pankhurst militants represented no more than a shrinking rump of the women’s movement, increasingly isolated from middle-class sympathizers.
The historian Elspeth King has a very clear idea about the importance of the role of the suffragette movement. Until the outbreak of the Great War in August 1914, the suffragettes were in the news every other day, and were putting their lives in danger so that women could have a political future. Many historians have ignored this, while others have had the insolence to say that militancy alienated the government and inhibited the women’s cause. We might still be waiting for the vote if it had been left to the men!
Yet others take a more balanced view. Diane Atkinson has said that: Suffragette tactics have come in for a lot of discussion. The greatest value of their methods lay in the publicity they achieved…..(but)…..the British public began to feel that by their deliberated law-breaking, the suffragettes brought all punishments upon themselves. The government did not want to be seen to be giving in to extremism.
Some historians believe that the war brought women the vote, and the suffrage campaigns were not important. Alasdair Gray has said that: No-one will ever know if suffragettes or suffragists had the better tactics for winning the vote. For by August 1914 Britain was at war……Millions of women became a key part of the war effort making shells, bombs guns and uniforms. And in January 1918, women were rewarded when the wartime government passed the Representation of the People Act giving a vote to all women over 30 years of age.
Some historians also believe that fear of suffragette activity after the war was important. Constance Rover believes that: It was obvious that the campaign would recommence once the war was over if nothing was done to enfranchise women. It would have been extremely embarrassing and probably unpopular to imprison women who had played such an important part in the war effort.
Yet other historians, like Paula Bartley, attack the view that a grateful nation gave the vote to women at the end of the war. It would be naïve to believe that women received to vote solely for services rendered in the First World War. It must be remembered that only women over 30 were given the vote and the very women who had helped in the war effort- the young women of the munitions factories-were actually denied the vote.
The Suffragettes. The Case Against Militancy.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that the campaign of violence did more harm than good. Churchill was of the opinion that “their cause had marched backwards”. The militant campaign failed to make a real impact on the government. Even suffrage supporters in the government agreed that it could not appear to be giving in to violence. The militant tactics provoked a backlash against the suffrage campaign. There was anti-suffrage violence during WSPU marches in 1912. By 1913 it was dangerous for any suffrage supporter to get on a soap box to make a speech at the well-known Speakers corner in Hyde Park.
Militancy itself became the issue and diverted attention away from woman’s suffrage. While violence attracted public interest it also forfeited mass support from women who preferred to join the non-militant NUWSS.
Liddington (historian) suggests that militant acts “only attracted public interest, never mass support”.
Eleanor Rathbone (suffragist) claimed that “militancy……….came within an inch of wrecking the suffrage movement, perhaps for a generation”.