Wspu The Methods Of The Nuwss example essay topic

What methods did the suffragists and suffragettes use, and how effective were these in gaining the vote for women? The Suffragettes and Suffragists used a variety of methods, some of which were effective, and others that were not, during their campaign. Both groups used methods with the single aim of gaining publicity, such as demonstrations, these were highly successful and effective. However, where the NUWSS and WSPU needed to use effective methods, was when persuading Parliament that women should have the vote.

It was here that the methods that they used were ineffective, even though they ranged form lobbying MPs, to Private Members Bills, and even heckling. The suffragettes felt that the suffragists were not making any progress with their campaign for the vote, and the NUWSS felt that the Wspu militant tactics undermined all of the work that they had carried out for ten years. These two viewpoints of each parties approaches being ineffective, effectively cancels out the efforts undertaken by each organisation, and therefore suggesting that neither group had any effect at all. So, if neither group used methods effective of gaining the vote for women, then how was the vote obtained in 1918? Perhaps the most effective method that both societies used, was the one that could only be prompted by the outbreak of war in 1914, this method being the postponing of their campaigns to help the war effort. This and other influencing factors such as the work of women during the war helped lead to some women obtaining the vote in 1918.

Had there not have been the war, would the case for female suffrage have continued with fruitless results, it is not known. What is known, are the ways in which the two major groups associated with female suffrage campaigned before 1914. Before discussing the ways in which these two organisations attempted to reach their goals, it is important to look at each of the organisations individually to understand their viewpoint and their specific aims. The title 'suffragist' was given to any female who was a member of an organisation known as the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). The NUWSS was formed in 1897 and one of its most prominent leaders was Millicent Fawcett, the daughter of a merchant who was sympathetic to the feminism, the younger sister of the first English woman doctor, the widow of a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, and a close friend of John Stuart Mill. Fawcett's connections within her family and close friends, was typical of suffragist leader, with these amounting in her being committed to social reform in a wider context.

Some families were labelled 'suffrage families's uch as Priscilla Bright, whose brother defended women suffrage in Parliament and whose sons and daughters-in-law were all women's suffrage activists. This kinship, friendship, religious and political circle to which many suffragists belonged, provided women with the emotional and moral support required to lead an unconventional campaign. The suffragists were strong in the end of the nineteenth century, with branches all over Britain from Inverness to Plymouth, and Norwich to Londonderry. In 1910 the membership stood at 21,571, and just before the outbreak of war there were 400 societies in England, Scotland and Wales. However, the suffragists faced new challenges in the form of the Women's Social and Political Union, otherwise known as the 'suffragettes'. The WSPU was established in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst, who had previously been active in suffrage campaigns.

The organisation was set up in her home in Manchester, and the decision to form a new association was prompted by dissatisfaction with the Labour Party and the NUWSS who were seen to be too cautious. It was not until the January of 1906 that the WSPU were labelled the suffragettes, when the Daily Mail coined the word, and it stuck. From this time on the female suffrage movement was to be dominated by these two main groups, the suffragists of the NUWSS and the suffragettes of the WSPU. The WSPU was seen as considerably less democratic than its rival the NUWSS. From 1906 policies were decided by an unelected Central Committee, consisting of Sylvia Pankhurst, Emmeline Pet hick Lawrence and Annie Kenney.

This committee was assisted by a sub-committee which consisted of family and friends. Members did not take part in decision making but were informed of new policies and strategies. The leadership controlled their own publications, appointments to paid positions and finances, making it difficult for members to oppose them. As time went on the WSPU were to become increasingly less democratic, as action needed to be taken, and as these actions became more militant. In 1909 there were at least eleven regional offices covering the country. Men were not allowed to join the organisation and the suffragettes continually affirmed women's independence from the opposite sex.

By 1913 the WSPU was unwilling to cooperate with men or organisations such as the NUWSS which had male associates. The NUWSS and WSPU were now rivals in the campaign for women's suffrage, and two very different approaches began to emerge. The NUWSS concentrated on internal politics and democracy, whereas the WSPU, spent little time discussing policy, as demonstrated by Emmeline Pankhursts "Deeds not words" approach to campaigning. With one organisation, the WSPU, forming largely due to the dissatisfaction of the others progress, the NUWSS, it is certain that the way in which the associations approach the cause of female suffrage will be different. This choice in using different methods, will be further favoured through rivalry between the two societies. By looking at the tactics used by the suffragists, we can try to understand why the suffragettes employed the methods that they did.

A measure of the effectiveness of each groups individual style can be made by looking at the successes and failures resulting from their campaigns. The campaign for women's suffrage can be split into three phases. These are the pioneering phase, the second phase, and the phase of militancy. The pioneering phase looks at the cause between 166 and 1870, and focuses upon the Reform Act of 1867. This phase was characterised by great optimism and spirited activity. Between 1870 and 1905 was the period of "doldrums" where the movement became muted and confused, this was the second phase.

The final phase was that of militancy starting in around 1905. This is the phase that I am principally concerned with, and it has been described as the "flowering time of the women's movement" by Stra chard. This phase consisted of years of preparation, the cause was springing from new born enthusiasm, and the issues and concerns of the suffragists remained fundamentally unchanged. The NUWSS falls between two phases, that of the doldrums and that of militancy. This depicts the attitude and approach that the suffragists took towards the suffrage movement. Early suffragists learned a lot about political tactics from their participation in the Anti-Corn Law campaigns of the early nineteenth century.

It was here that the suffragists discovered organising public meetings, demonstrating, writing propaganda literature, raising money, lobbying MPs and petitioning Parliament. These were all traditional middle class methods of campaigning. The suffragists used a variety of legal methods to promote the cause, meetings being one of these. The NUWSS raised the question of women's suffrage at trade union conferences and visited many of the major cotton towns to publicise the cause. By the beginning of the twentieth century meetings were being held at both fairs and wakes to publicise the case for women's suffrage.

The fact that these women were speaking in public was seen as unladylike and daring. Victorian society was shocked by the tactics, a case in point being when Millicent Fawcett and another suffragist spoke to a mixed audience at the Architectural Society in London in 1869. However by the end of the nineteenth century public speaking was commonplace and widely accepted, unless it took place at an unusual event, such as Fawcett being the first woman to debate at the Oxford Union in 1908. This method was effective for raising awareness in the early days of the suffrage movement, but as time went on the scandal and shame of public speaking was buried, and other methods needed to be found to shock the public and raise awareness. Another legal method used by the suffragists was that of the 'demonstration' and 'pilgrimage'. Both suffrage groups used demonstrations as a propaganda weapon, as the could draw members together in a feeling of communal identity, engender a sense of purpose, and further publicise votes for women.

In February 1907 the first major demonstration by the NUWSS took place and became known as the Mud March because of the weather conditions at the time. The demonstration replaced the public speech, and even as late as 1907, it was considered unladylike to participate in outdoor protest. The demonstration from Hyde Park corner in February was a great success and as a result of its success, similar processions were organised yearly. A pilgrimage in August 1913 organised by the NUWSS enjoyed great success, and demonstrators were often greeted by bands, and provided with food and drink throughout their journeys. The 'demonstration' and 'pilgrimage' perhaps saw the first signs of treating women supporting the suffrage movement as heroines. Public speaking, demonstrations, and pilgrimages, all created large amounts of publicity for the NUWSS, but all suffrage groups would wage an intensive propaganda campaign to promote votes for women.

The suffragists printed large quantities of pamphlets and organised petitions to raise awareness. Suffrage groups would publish their own newspapers and wrote their own plays, short stories, and poems to further promote female suffrage. The regular production of suffrage newspapers such as, The Women's Suffrage Journal from 1870, and Votes for Women from 1907 proved to be an excellent way in both public ising the cause, and keeping communications alive between the various groups and associations. The Actresses' Franchise League would perform plays were the females were portrayed as the heroines pitted against unyielding and intransigent males. These would be performed in drawing rooms and public theatres to strengthen supporters. The NUWSS had tried to raise awareness through the last three methods, but there was one other legal tactic that they used to try and gain the vote, this was persuading Parliament.

Parliament was the only body with the constitutional right to grant the vote to women, therefore, the suffragists desperately tried to convince MPs that female suffrage was the logical thing to do. The legality of women's exclusion from the vote was tested, parliament was petitioned, and MPs were lobbied; all conventional methods of pressure. They used the politics of persuasion, rather than those of confrontation. Parliaments refusal to budge meant that peaceful protests were to be superseded by violence as a method of gaining the vote for some groups, such as the suffragettes.

The suffragists however, continued to exert moderate pressure compared to the intimidating methods of the WSPU. In the 1860's the suffragists alleged that women had once had the right to vote but were expelled in 1832 when the Great Reform Act specified 'male persons'. They challenged the legality of the Great Reform Act in both Charlton vs. Lings in England, and Brown vs. Ingram in Scotland, but the suffragists lost their case when the courts refused to accept validity for their claim. Due to the Anti-Corn Law Leagues success in petitioning the House of Commons the suffragists felt that they had a good chance using the same method. They felt this for a variety of reasons, not only because it indicated to government the large numbers in favour of votes for women, but because once again it helped arouse public interest in the campaign.

However the lack of the vote amongst women meant that their petitions were not as sympathetically viewed as those made by men regarding the Corn Laws. Another method involved the lobbying of MPs. The first Committee of Members of Parliament who pledged their commitment to votes for women was set up in 1887 by Lydia Becker, and seventy one MPs joined. Combined with the NUWSS the work done resulted in a private members bill in support of women's suffrage being brought in almost every year.

Government franchise bills were also looked at to be amended to include women's suffrage. John Stuart Mill introduced the first ever women's suffrage amendment to the Second Reform Bill while William Woodall tried to secure the inclusion of women's suffrage to the Third Reform Bill of 1884. An amendment supporting voted for women was attached to the three Plural voting Bills of 1906, 1913 and 1914, and the 1912 Irish Home Rule Bill. Unfortunately, all of the amendments failed. As reform bills and amendments were not working, the suffragists looked to helping Liberal MPs who supported votes for women get elected. In the 1910 election the NUWSS obtained the candidates views on women's suffrage, and then undertook door-to-door canvassing to support sympathisers.

In Wimbledon the NUWSS ran the entire election campaign of the women's suffrage candidate. The NUWSS were disillusioned by the Liberal Party and from 1912 onwards they redirected their allegiance to the labour Party. The NUWSS subsidised Labour Mps in Parliament who were sympathetic to the cause, and set up an Election Fighting Fund to sustain Labour candidates and defeat the Liberals. These tactics were thought to be successful. The suffragists did not only use legal methods to try and obtain the vote, but they did also use some that were illegal. An example of an illegal method used by the suffragists is that of tax evasion.

The refusal to pay taxes had a long history in the annals of the suffrage movement, as it was thought that taxation and representation were inseparably united. A number of wealthy suffragists lost property and faced heavy fines for non payment of taxes, but felt these punishments worthwhile for the sake of the cause. Along with tax evasion, another illegal method chosen by the suffragists was census resistance. It was not just the suffragists, but all suffrage groups linked the census with citizenship, and citizenship with suffrage, and as a result 'no-vote no-census' became one of their chants. The Women Freedom League organised a boycott of the 1911 census, and both the NUWSS and WSPU endorsed it. On the day of the census large numbers of women made elaborate arrangements to stay away from home for the night to avoid the enumerator.

The most extreme of these being one member of the Women's Freedom League spending the whole night on roller skates at the Aldwych Skating Rink, others stayed in offices, went to all night entertainments offered by suffrage societies or would offer their large house as a place to stay to others supporting the boycott. These were the ways in which the NUWSS campaigned for female suffrage. They used methods of both a legal and illegal nature, with varied success. One thing that can be said about the suffragists and their campaigning is that in the beginning, their outrageous tactics, such as public speaking, created a lot of publicity for the party, and raised awareness regarding votes for women. The meetings, demonstrations, pilgrimages and propaganda techniques were all effective in raising awareness and support, as shown by membership figures of 50,000 by 1914. However, the suffragists had little success persuading Parliament, which is the area in which they needed to have success to gain the vote.

Their petitions were not radical enough to be sufficient of attention, their legal cases failed in court, and although they supported certain candidates during election time, disillusionment of the Liberal Party led to a large amount of wasted time and it was not until they began supporting Labour candidates that some success was shown. As for the illegal methods of tax evasion and census resistance, these were extremely moderate methods which were a nuisance at the time but did not create a large amount of fuss, therefore did not receive the attention from politicians that was desired. In conclusion some individual methods were very effective in raising public awareness, which was the effect desired, such as public speaking, but the tactics employed when actually trying to obtain the vote, such as amendments to private members bills, were totally unsuccessful, and the only approach they could turn to would be a more militant one. The suffragists chose not to use militant methods, hence the birth of the WSPU. Some women obtained the vote in 1918, and you could argue that the methods of the suffragists were obviously successful as they achieved their main aim, even if it was for a select group of individuals. However, there were many other influencing factors in obtaining the vote for women, such as the suffragettes and the war.

These must be taken into account, and therefore I would say that the methods of the suffragists were both highly unsuccessful and ineffective in obtaining the vote for women between 1897 and 1918. Due to the obvious lack in progress made by the suffragists, a new organisation established in 1903, known as the WSPU. The WSPU was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903. This organisation therefore also falls between the phases of the doldrums and that of militancy.

Being so late into the phase of the doldrums, it is fair to say that this organisation largely existed when militancy was at large in female suffrage. In fact, it was the WSPU, also known as the suffragettes who brought militancy to the campaigning of votes for women. This however was not always the case, as shown by the fact that the WSPU did exist in the phase known as the doldrums for a couple of years. However as time went on the suffragettes did use less democratic measures, largely as a result of little success of other approaches.

The methods of the suffragettes ranged from the peaceful practice of meetings, demonstrations and pilgrimages to the extreme militant measures of window smashing, arson attacks, and heckling. As said before, the suffragettes did start out, and did continue to use some peaceful methods within their campaign regime. The first of these would have been the use of meetings. Meetings were by no means exclusive to the NUWSS, all suffrage groups held both semi-private and public meetings to both generate publicity and recruit members.

Public meetings were organised throughout the country by the WSPU to consolidate support, gain recruits, collect money, and sell papers. In 1909 large meetings were led in the Royal Albert Hall, the Queen's Hall, the Colston Hall, St. Andrews Hall and the Rotunda. The meetings were carefully orchestrated and planned. In Birmingham the organisation broke into districts, each district had an organiser, and each organiser had to co-ordinate four small weekly meetings to publicise women's suffrage. Although public speaking was now widely used and accepted, the WSPU broke new ground by speaking to audiences in open air places ranging from Trafalgar Square to village greens.

Just the same as the NUWSS the WSPU held meetings at fairs and wakes by the end of the twentieth century. One of the most important meetings held by the WSPU was what they called the first Women's Parliament at Caxton Hall, across the square form the House of Commons. This was held on February 13th 1907 as a protest against their exclusion from the franchise. These suffrage meetings often attracted large audiences and were highly successful and effective in recruiting members and raising awareness. Not only did the suffragettes hold meetings, but they also had demonstrations and pilgrimages. As they did with meetings, the WSPU gave demonstrations a new direction.

They introduced melodrama to an old form of protest and livened up demonstrations by making them into dramatic performances. They used colour to symbolism certain qualities related to the party. Purple was used for dignity, white for purity and green for hope, to represent the suffragettes. The women dressed up for demonstrations, be it in their working clothes, dressing in prison clothes, or being accompanied by pipers. Demonstrators carried eight feet high banners and enormous posters with the portraits of the leadership on them. Various bands playing protest songs accompanied the marching women.

These demonstrations have been called the 'spectacle of women'. The demonstrations were highly effective in gaining publicity and introducing the idea of votes for women to many people. The suffragettes also used propaganda techniques, as did the NUWSS to push the movement along. The suffrage newspapers talked about in relation to the suffragists were the same for the suffragettes. The suffragettes also used plays and performances to reach their audience, such as How the Vote Was Won, a play by Elizabeth Robins, an active member of the WSPU. The suffragettes would even disrupt plays about female heroines.

An example of this was when three suffragettes barricaded themselves into a box at Covent Garden to interrupt a performance of Joan of Arc. A film, 'True Womanhood' was also released, and looked at the struggle for women's suffrage. The suffragettes made full use of limericks, poetry and music, 'The March of the Women' being an example of this, where a catchy tune and memorable lyrics were used for a rallying song. The effectiveness of all of these propaganda techniques was really down to the fact that the WSPU were great sales-women. They designed, advertised and marketed a wide variety of goods in their London shops. The suffragettes also made use of their party colours, selling soap, cakes and tea caddies in purple, white and green.

Cards, crackers, dolls and scarves were sold in shades of purple, with badges, bags, blouses and belts being sold in shops also. The stock did not stop there, they created books, pamphlets, stationary, games and playing cards. Another propaganda technique was holding bazaars to raise money, and at one particular bazaar in Glasgow a quilt embroidered with the names of suffragette hunger strikers was offered for sale. The methods used in the twentieth century by the WSPU suggested a sense of humour that was far removed from the conventional dour image of the suffrage movement. By being innovative in its techniques the WSPU rarely missed an opportunity to promote votes for women.

The WSPU also used sporting events as a good base for publicity, such as the boat race between Oxford and Cambridge, where the WSPU ran a launch filled with 'Votes for women' banners, while on another occasion it hired a boat to sail to the House of Commons in order to harangue MPs taking tea on the terrace. The suffragettes did use a variety of peaceful methods to try and gain the vote for women, but their attempts were unsuccessful and the movement seemed to have ground to a halt. As a consequence, the suffragettes turned to other forms of political action to get their voice heard. It is for this action that the suffragettes are renowned. People however, do not realise that they attempted to gain the vote peacefully before feeling that they had to turn to more militant methods to obtain what they so desperately wanted, the vote for women. The suffragettes once again began using the same methods as the suffragists, such as tax evasion, and census resistance.

These were no more than mild forms of disobedience. The WSPU supported the boycott of the 1911 census and many suffragettes evaded taxes. Even though this was a step up from their previous tactics, they were not getting women any closer to the vote, so, the suffragettes looked towards methods of increased militancy for various reasons. From 1908 onwards the suffragettes intensified political pressure and promoted new confrontational methods to force MPs to give women the vote.

The reason for this change has been subject to wide debate. Some have viewed it as humorous or sought explanations within a psychological framework of madness and abnormality. Militancy for some anti-suffragists was seen as a reflection of the instability of women, and that of fanatical and hysterical women more particularly. To these people, the turn to violence was proof that women should not be allowed to vote. Some saw militancy as the sign of 'individual psychological imbalance' whereas others viewed it as an expression of a malaise affecting women more broadly. Recent historians suggest that militancy was the result of rational response to male intransigence.

Brian Harrison claims that "militancy was a temporary tactical necessity born of the failure of legal an peaceful methods". However Harrison also criticised the suffragettes comparing them to schoolgirls breaking the rules when the headmistress is away rather than them being revolutionary's. As you would expect, radical feminist historians view suffragette violence quite differently. Their stance is that violent behaviour challenged male supremacy, and the WSPU was not only heroic, but was the precursor of modern feminism. The suffragettes offered a number of strategic reasons for their behaviour. The suffragettes firstly argued that militancy was adopted in response to the failure of years of peaceful campaigning to which politicians failed to give recognition to, or even appear to notice.

The second reason was that militancy was a reaction to the 1906 Liberal Government which, by excluding women from public meetings and refusing to meet suffrage deputations, had denied suffragettes the main forms of agitation open to the disenfranchised. Thirdly, militancy was seen as a retaliatory measure against a Government who force fed and imprisoned those who participated in direct action. The suffragettes felt that if the Government were to threat women directly, it should too feel intimidated. The fourth reason was that the suffragettes believed themselves to be continuing a tradition of protest.

The WSPU drew on historical examples of unlawful physical force being used to justify its tactics and identified the suffragettes with past revolutionary and resistance heroes. Finally, the suffragettes were convinced that the Government would not grant women the vote until they were forced to do so. Christabel Pankhurst noted that miners had succeeded in gaining improved pay and conditions in 1911 because they had made themselves a nuisance. Other comparisons were drawn between the suffragettes and pressure groups who advocated violence.

Militancy often began at a local level, and was only adopted as WSPU policy when it received extensive support from the members. Sandra Holton pointed out that arson, window smashing, letter burning and hunger striking were all initiated by rank and file members. After looking at the reasoning for more militant methods, these exact tactics must be looked at, and whether they were indeed more effective than the peaceful attempts made for so many years. One of the first violent tactics used was that of window smashing. The first window was smashed as response to the treatment that a woman received outside the House of Commons in 1908. Window breaking was not authorised by the WSPU leadership but was an angry response to police violence.

Window breaking did however soon gain retrospective approval from the leadership of the WSPU, and then it became official policy. Window smashing did not generally occur haphazardly, but as a consequence of alleged government double dealing. An example of this being when Asquith rejected a Conciliation Bill for women's suffrage in November 1911, the response of the WSPU was immediately shattering windows at the Home Office, the War Office, the Foreign Office, the Board of Education, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, Somerset House, The National Liberal Club, Guards Club, the Daily Mail and the Daily News. The suffragettes did not only limit their violence to window smashing, but there were also arson attacks. Arson attacks, like window breaking, were initially started by individuals acting on their own, and later became official WSPU policy. Emily Davison's destruction of a pillar box in December 1911 shifted militancy to a new level.

Although there were a few sporadic arson attacks before 1913 the partial destruction of Lloyd George's country house in Surrey that year marked a watershed in suffragette violence. Emmeline Pankhurst stated "We have tried blowing him up to wake his conscience". The arson attacks were usually a response to particular political events as with the window smashing. In Ireland the destruction of windows in English buildings was usually in response to the failure of a women's suffrage amendment in England. The arson campaign was widespread throughout Britain.

Arson attacks and window smashing were the prominent acts of violence made in response to particular political occurrences. There were however other acts of damaging behaviour carried out by the WSPU. As a protest against the higher value placed upon property than people, the suffragettes tried to destroy valuable works of art. Suffragettes would follow where others had walked, such as 'Slasher Mary', Mary Richardson, who destroyed a painting which hung in the National Gallery, with an axe, and claimed that she wanted to draw a parallel between the public's indifference to Emmeline Pankhursts health and their respect for a valuable object, saying that they could get another picture but not another life as they were killing Mrs Pankhurst, who was extremely weak due to constant imprisonment and hunger striking. Further attacks upon paintings were to follow. The WSPU also cut telegraph wires, destroyed plants in Kew Greenhouse and burnt messages with acid into golf courses saying "No votes, No Golf".

The most extreme of results of militant action was that seen at the 1913 Derby where Emily Davison died accidentally as result of injuries sustained after being trampled over by the Kings Horse. She was not the only one to die in the suffrage cause, Ellen Pit field died of injuries received on Black Friday 1910. Others were physically weakened and died at an early age as a result of suffrage activities. These protests of window smashing, arson attacks, cutting telegraph wires, and burning messages into golf courses were all orchestrated and were not reminiscent of traditional forms of political protest in the slightest. The illegal actions of the suffragettes meant that it was likely that they would get arrested. This led to a new form of political protest, hunger striking.

Many imprisoned went on hunger strike as a protest against unfair detention and to gain publicity. As with window smashing and arson attacks, the first hunger strike was thought of independently by Marion Wallace-Dunlop, who was imprisoned for stencilling a quotation from the Bill of Rights on a wall in the House of Commons. The action of hunger striking soon became official WSPU policy especially as hunger strikers were released from prison when their health was seen to be in danger. By using the experiences of hunger strikers, the WSPU could gain widespread sympathy. This was helped by the production of the suffrage newspaper 'Votes for Women' which regularly featured articles on hunger strikers. The paper drew attention to class differences with working class women being forcibly fed, whereas upper and middle class women were given preferential treatment.

Cases of this nature crew attention to class differences within prison and the wider society and which the female vote might help to eliminate. In 1913 the Cat and Mouse Act was passed by the Liberal Government to put an end to hunger striking. Its correct name was the Prisoner's Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Act. This released hunger strikers for a temporary period of time to recover. The legislation was an ingenious way of solving the problem, but it was quickly mocked by the suffragettes. All of these methods were not proving enough to gain women the vote, so the Suffragettes looked to disrupting what they regarded as the male authority of the church and state, and harassing authority.

The WSPU put a lot of energy into attacking the church, and condemned it for its 'shameful and obsequiously compliant attitude' in not speaking out against the perceived torture of imprisoned suffrage martyrs. The church was largely criticised because Jesus Christ was regarded as a rebel who spoke out against injustice. There were widespread protests in various churches and cathedrals, where suffragettes interrupted services to pray in support of votes for women. Parliament was an obvious object of attack, as it was Parliament alone who held authority to grant the vote to women. From the beginning the WSPU heckled politicians who had ignored their gentle tactics. Much needed publicity could be created through the disruption of meetings, such as that in Manchester Free Trade Hall by Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney.

Imprisonment was news. Protests at public meetings proved to be a very successful means of calling attention to the demand for votes for women. A continuation of disruption of this nature by suffragettes led to the banning of women from political meetings. The response of the WSPU to this was concealing themselves between organ pipes, lurking under platforms, or even arriving in mid air swinging on ropes through skylights. Politicians were also harassed at golf clubs, when they were leaving churches, and when they were dining at home. The strategy of interrupting speeches marked a watershed in suffrage history.

By stopping male politicians speaking, it not only challenged authority but claimed a political voice for women who were supposed to remain silent. The WSPU aimed to embarrass the Liberal Government causing defeat, and success in gaining the vote. The effectiveness of the tactics used by the suffragettes, as with the suffragists was varied. Many of their individual methods, peaceful or militant, drew attention to the cause and raise awareness. However increased violence did sometimes cause hostility towards WSPU. Through using innovative measures such as window smashing, arson attacks and hunger striking, the suffragettes managed to keep their cause of female suffrage within the media, but this does beg the question as to whether the publicity received within the media was of a beneficial nature, and therefore was it really effective in gaining the vote in 1918.

In conclusion it is important to not look at the NUWSS and WSPU as two separate organisations, but to combine them as both working towards a common goal, votes for women. The destructive methods of the WSPU have been the subject of much research. The turn from peaceful methods in 1860 to violence in 1914 had dominated many texts upon the subject of female suffrage. However, the violent methods did not replace constitutional ones so much as supplement them. Both the suffragists and suffragettes continued to use petitioning Parliament, lobbying MPs, and demonstrations, as well as supporting the two Conciliation Bills.

Through the failure of these many NUWSS women resigned form the Liberal Party, whereas the WSPU reverted to violence. There is no doubt that the leaders of the NUWSS grew irritated by increasingly violent tactics of the WSPU as over the year they had tried to prove that women were calm, sensible and rational human beings, and so they put forward measured arguments and used democratic methods to get their message across. The NUWSS feared that the use of violence discredited the suffrage movement and undermined efforts of the suffragists to be seen as mature women who could be trusted with the vote. The NUWSS felt that the WSPU virtually made any of the efforts that they had gone to completely ineffective and a waste of time. The NUWSS were however reluctant to criticise openly and publicly so as not to add fuel to the Government.

It is sometimes argued that the violence of the WSPU lost them sympathy and support of the country at large and provided the Liberal Government with the ideal excuse to deny women the vote. The WSPU leaders denied causations of ineffective and counter-productive measures. To the WSPU persuasive tactics not militant methods were ineffective as peaceful methods had brought the vote no further forward in 1905 than fifty years before. So, according to the WSPU the methods of the NUWSS were ineffective, and in the mind of the NUWSS the violent methods used by the WSPU discredited all of their work and damaged the case for female suffrage only proving the government right. If both organisations deem each others methods as ineffective then how did women get the vote in 1918?

The answer I do believe lies not only in the peaceful and violent methods of female organisations, but in the break out of war in 1914 and the attitude of women to this, more importantly, the attitude of working class women to this, who had little involvement in the NUWSS and even less in the WSPU. That however is a completely different essay. To answer my question as to how effective the methods were in gaining the vote for women, I would say in the case of the NUWSS that their methods were highly ineffective, but perhaps this was due to the discredit of their work by the WSPU. In relevance to the WSPU I believe their methods to have been of greater effect when they were of a less violent nature, such as the window breaking, but when missiles being thrown at politicians began to occur, I feel that the WSPU may have damaged the cause for suffrage more than helping it, making their methods highly ineffective also..