Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 4 The Women’s Social and Political Union, 1903–14 — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 4 The Women’s Social and Political Union, 1903–14 explained
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 4 The Women’s Social and Political Union, 1903–14 covers 3 specification points, including WSPU organisation and tactics; extent of… and The roles of Emily Davison and Christabel,….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
WSPU organisation and tactics; extent of support; the reasons for, and impact of, increased militancy after 1908.
This topic examines the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), founded in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters. It analyses the WSPU’s organisational structure, including its centralised leadership and paid organisers, and its tactics such as demonstrations, window-breaking, and arson. It considers the extent of support, from mass meetings to criticism from other suffragists. It explores why militancy increased after 1908, including frustration with government inaction and the influence of Christabel Pankhurst. Finally, it assesses the impact of militancy, such as publicity, imprisonment, force-feeding, and the eventual granting of partial suffrage in 1918. Students should evaluate these factors and their interconnections.
The roles of Emily Davison and Christabel, Emmeline and Sylvia Pankhurst; extent of the WSPU’s success by 1914.
This topic examines four leading figures and evaluates how far the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) had succeeded by 1914. Emmeline Pankhurst founded the WSPU in 1903 and drove its militant strategy; Christabel Pankhurst directed much of its publicity and policy from London and later Paris; Sylvia Pankhurst worked among working-class women in the East End and was increasingly at odds with her mother and sister. Emily Davison is best known for her death at the 1913 Derby, but she was also a persistent campaigner who undertook hunger strikes and window-breaking. Success by 1914 can be judged by publicity, membership, parliamentary progress and the failure to win the vote. Students should weigh these criteria and reach a supported judgement.
Government attitudes to female suffrage and WSPU; reasons for the failure of the Women’s Suffrage bill 1909, the Conciliation Committee and the Conciliation bills 1910 and 1911, and the Government Franchise bill 1913.
This topic examines government attitudes to female suffrage and WSPU militancy, and reasons for the failure of successive bills before 1914. Government attitudes ranged from outright opposition by Asquith to cautious support. The Women’s Suffrage bill 1909 was talked out. The Conciliation Committee drafted cross-party bills, but the Conciliation bills 1910 and 1911 failed: the 1910 bill was derailed by a general election, and the 1911 bill was killed when Asquith announced a separate Manhood Suffrage Bill. The Government Franchise bill 1913 was withdrawn after the Speaker ruled that a women's suffrage amendment would so alter the bill that it could not proceed. Students should link these failures to government tactics and WSPU actions.
Your focus
- Describe the organisation and tactics of the WSPU, including changes over time.
- Analyse the extent of support for the WSPU and the reasons for increased militancy after 1908.
- Evaluate the impact of WSPU militancy on the campaign for women’s suffrage and on public opinion.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe the roles of Emily Davison and Christabel, Emmeline and Sylvia Pankhurst in the WSPU.
- Explain how the WSPU's tactics and leadership affected its public profile and membership by 1914.
- Evaluate the extent of the WSPU's success by 1914, using criteria such as publicity, parliamentary progress and the achievement of the vote.
- Describe government attitudes to female suffrage and the WSPU before 1914.
- Explain the specific reasons for the failure of the Women's Suffrage bill 1909, the Conciliation bills 1910 and 1911, and the Government Franchise bill 1913.
- Analyse how parliamentary tactics, government attitudes and WSPU militancy combined to prevent women from winning the vote by 1914.
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 4 The Women’s Social and Political Union, 1903–14 exam tips
Marking Points
- Describes WSPU organisation: centralised control by the Pankhursts, paid staff, and local branches.
- Explains WSPU tactics: constitutional methods initially, then civil disobedience and violence after 1908.
- Assesses the extent of support: large demonstrations, but also opposition from non-militant suffragists and the public.
- Analyses reasons for increased militancy after 1908: government refusal to grant women the vote, the 'Cat and Mouse' Act, and leadership decisions.
- Evaluates the impact of militancy: raised public awareness, but also alienated some supporters and delayed conciliation.
- Discusses the role of key figures: Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, and the Women’s Freedom League split.
- Emmeline Pankhurst provided leadership and a clear militant strategy, using the motto 'Deeds not words' and accepting imprisonment to keep the campaign in the news.
- Christabel Pankhurst was a key strategist and speaker; she helped organise the 1907 'Women's Parliament' and later directed WSPU activity from Paris to avoid arrest.
- Sylvia Pankhurst focused on organising working-class women in London's East End, which brought the WSPU into contact with socialist and labour movements but created tensions with the leadership.
- Emily Davison's militant actions, including hunger strikes and the 1913 Derby protest, generated enormous publicity, though her death did not immediately win the vote.
- By 1914 the WSPU had raised the profile of women's suffrage, gained thousands of members and forced debate, but no women could vote in parliamentary elections, so political success was limited.
- A strong answer distinguishes between publicity success and legislative failure, and uses specific evidence such as the 1910 and 1911 Conciliation Bills and the 1913 Government Franchise Bill to test the extent of success.
- Explains government attitudes to female suffrage and the WSPU, noting Asquith's personal opposition and use of procedural tactics to avoid granting the vote.
- Analyses the reasons for the failure of the Women’s Suffrage bill 1909, a private member's bill that failed because it was talked out and lacked government support.
- Assesses the role of the Conciliation Committee and the failure of the Conciliation bills 1910 and 1911: the 1910 bill was overtaken by the general election, and the 1911 bill was undermined by Asquith's announcement of a separate Manhood Suffrage Bill.
- Explains the failure of the Government Franchise bill 1913, which was withdrawn after the Speaker ruled that adding women's suffrage would change the bill so fundamentally that it would need to be reintroduced.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Use specific examples of WSPU tactics and their consequences to support arguments.
- 💡Compare the WSPU with other suffrage societies to assess the extent of support.
- 💡When evaluating impact, consider short-term and long-term effects, and different perspectives.
- 💡Plan your answer around the criteria for success: publicity, membership, parliamentary impact and the ultimate goal of the vote.
- 💡Use precise dates and names, such as the 1903 founding, the 1907 Women's Parliament, the 1910 and 1911 Conciliation Bills, and the 1913 Derby.
- 💡When discussing the Pankhursts, compare their roles and note disagreements, especially Sylvia's East End work versus Christabel's national strategy.
- 💡Reach a clear judgement on the extent of success by 1914, supported by evidence on both sides.
- 💡Learn the sequence of bills and their specific reasons for failure, as questions often ask for causation.
- 💡Distinguish between private members' bills and government bills, and explain why this mattered for the suffrage campaign.
Common Mistakes
- Error: stating that all suffragettes were violent. Correction: distinguish between the WSPU’s militant wing and the non-militant suffragists of the NUWSS.
- Error: claiming that militancy directly caused the 1918 Representation of the People Act. Correction: recognise the impact of women’s war work and changing political climate as equally important.
- Error: ignoring the extent of support beyond London. Correction: include examples of WSPU activities and branches across the UK.
- Treating the WSPU as a single unified organisation: correct by noting the different emphases of Emmeline, Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst, and the tensions between them.
- Assuming that Emily Davison's death at the Derby directly caused women to win the vote: correct by explaining that the vote was not granted until 1918 and 1928, and that her action was part of a wider campaign.
- Confusing publicity with legislative success: correct by separating the WSPU's ability to attract attention from its failure to secure a suffrage bill before 1914.
- Using vague terms such as 'the government' without distinguishing between Asquith's Liberal government and backbench MPs: correct by naming key figures and the specific bills concerned.
- Believing that the Conciliation bills 1910 and 1911 were the same bill: correct by noting that they were separate attempts, with the 1910 bill lost due to the general election and the 1911 bill defeated after Asquith announced a separate Manhood Suffrage Bill.
- Assuming that the Government Franchise bill 1913 was defeated by a vote: correct by explaining that it was withdrawn after the Speaker's ruling on the scope of amendments.
- Attributing all failure to WSPU militancy alone: correct by also considering government attitudes, Asquith's opposition, and the procedural complexities of private members' bills.