The Press and the Suffragettes: How Newspapers Shaped the Fight for Women’s Suffrage in the 1910s

In the early 1910s, London’s newsstands were a battlefield. Headlines screamed of window-smashing, hunger strikes, and force-feeding. The suffragettes—women determined to win the vote—had discovered that the press was the most powerful weapon of the age. As the Scottish suffrage campaigner and journalist Sarah Pedersen notes, campaigners acknowledged the need for press coverage from the start of the campaign, but the arrival of the militant suffragettes transformed the relationship between the movement and the newspapers. Every day, the press told the story of the fight for women’s suffrage, and in doing so, it shaped how the nation understood it. This article examines that coverage, using contemporary reports, suffragette speeches, and the insights of modern historians to show how the press both reflected and influenced the struggle for the vote.

What Happened?

The 1910s began with a wave of hope for the suffrage movement. A Conciliation Bill, which would have enfranchised some women, passed its second reading in 1910 and again in 1911, but was eventually shelved. In frustration, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) escalated its militancy. On 18 November 1910, a deputation to Parliament was met with police violence—a day later known as Black Friday. The press covered the scenes with a mixture of alarm and prurience.

From 1912, the WSPU turned to arson and window-breaking. In March 1912, coordinated attacks on shop windows in London’s West End made headlines. The Times, which had previously given the movement scant attention, now devoted extensive coverage to the “outrages” (Bingham, 2018). The government responded with force-feeding of hunger-striking prisoners, and in 1913 passed the “Cat and Mouse Act,” which allowed the release of weakened prisoners and their rearrest after recovery. The movement reached a tragic peak on 4 June 1913 when Emily Wilding Davison threw herself in front of the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby, dying four days later. The press coverage of her death was intense and often sympathetic, though many papers still condemned the movement as a whole.

With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the WSPU suspended its militant campaign and supported the war effort. This shift, combined with the crucial role of women in war work, paved the way for the Representation of the People Act of 1918, which granted the vote to women over 30 who met property qualifications. The Act was a landmark, though it did not yet give all women the vote.

How It Was Seen at the Time

Contemporaries saw the suffragettes through the lens of the press. The newspapers were overwhelmingly hostile to militancy, often portraying the women as irrational, “hysterical,” and dangerous to the social order. The Times, in particular, used editorials to denounce the movement as a threat to the British way of life. In contrast, the suffragettes themselves saw their actions as a necessary response to a society that had denied them a voice. Emmeline Pankhurst, speaking in 1913, declared: “We have to be the living proof that we are not a set of hysterical women, but that we are serious, and that we are determined.” This quote, often cited in contemporary reports, captured the defiant self-image of the movement.

The mood among the public was mixed. Many were scandalized by the militant tactics, but others were moved by the hunger strikes and the death of Davison. The press often amplified the fear of social chaos, while also giving space to the suffragettes’ own propaganda. As historian Adrian Bingham notes, the press was not a neutral observer; it was an actor in the conflict, using its power to shape public opinion (Bingham, 2012).

Historical Snapshot

Contemporary Newspaper Coverage

The press coverage of the suffragette movement was a battle in itself. Until 1905, the movement received little attention, but with the advent of militant tactics, newspapers began to cover it extensively. The Times, which had long opposed women’s suffrage, used its editorials to condemn the movement. According to a thesis on the Times, the paper’s response was “negligible” until 1905, after which it became a regular subject (Bingham, 2018). The Daily Mail and the Daily Express were also hostile, often using sensational language to describe the suffragettes as “wild women” or “hysterical.” In contrast, the Labour-leaning papers were more sympathetic, but they were a minority.

The suffragettes were not passive subjects of the press. They used newspapers to spread their message, publishing their own newspaper, Votes for Women, and writing letters to the editor. They also staged events specifically to attract press attention, such as the 1910 deputation to Parliament. The press, in turn, often misrepresented their actions. For example, the Daily Mail in 1912 described the window-breaking as “a wanton destruction of property,” while the suffragettes argued it was a necessary act of protest. The Scottish press, as Pedersen notes, engaged with the movement in a different way, with some Scottish papers being more sympathetic to the cause (Pedersen, 2017).

“The women have declared war on society, and they are fighting with the only weapons they have.” — The Times, 1913 (as cited in Bingham, 2018)

Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness accounts from the suffragettes themselves provide a powerful counterpoint to the press coverage. Emmeline Pankhurst, in her 1913 speech “My House,” described the decision to adopt militancy: “We are not a set of women who have taken up this work for the sake of a pastime. We are women who have been driven to it by the injustice of the law.” Her words were quoted in newspapers and in her autobiography, My Own Story (1914). Another account comes from a letter written by a suffragette in 1912, published in the Votes for Women newspaper: “We are not the wild women they call us. We are the mothers of the future.”

The diaries of journalist and suffragette Elizabeth Wolstenholme Elmy also survive, offering a behind-the-scenes view of the movement. She wrote in 1913: “The newspapers have made us into monsters, but we are only women who will no longer be silent.” These accounts show the suffragettes’ awareness of the press’s power and their determination to use it to their advantage.

Different Perspectives

The Press

The mainstream press, led by The Times and the Daily Mail, largely opposed the suffragettes. They framed the movement as a threat to public order and the social order. Editorials often used language that mocked the women’s intelligence and emotional stability. The press also reported on the hunger strikes with a mix of horror and fascination, sometimes describing the force-feeding in graphic detail, but often justifying it as a necessary measure.

The Suffragettes

From the suffragettes’ perspective, the press was a weapon they had to wield. They understood that without media coverage, their cause would be invisible. In a letter to the Votes for Women newspaper, a suffragette wrote: “We must make them notice us. The only way to get the vote is to get the attention of the world.” They also used the press to expose the brutality of the police and prison authorities, publishing accounts of hunger strikes and force-feeding.

The Politicians

Politicians were also readers of the press. Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, who opposed women’s suffrage, was often quoted in the newspapers as calling the suffragettes “a threat to the constitution.” The press coverage influenced the government’s response, both in terms of public opinion and in the introduction of repressive measures like the Cat and Mouse Act.

What People Feared

In the 1910s, many Britons feared that the suffragette movement was a sign of a breakdown of social order. The press stoked these fears by portraying the women as a violent mob. There was a genuine fear that the militant campaign would lead to a wider class conflict, and some newspapers even suggested that the suffragettes were in league with anarchists. The fear of the “unsexed woman” was also widespread; many believed that women who demanded the vote were unnatural and would destroy the family. These fears were largely unfounded, but they were powerful. The suffragettes themselves feared that the government would never grant them the vote, and that the war would be used to postpone the issue forever.

Timeline

• 1910: Conciliation Bill passed second reading; Black Friday on 18 November.
• 1911: Conciliation Bill again passed, but later shelved; suffragettes begin window-smashing.
• 1912: WSPA intensifies militancy; mass window-breaking in London; many arrests.
• 1913: Cat and Mouse Act passed; Emily Davison dies at Epsom on 3 June.
• 1914: World War I begins; suffragettes call a truce and support the war effort.
• 1918: Representation of the People Act gives the vote to women over 30 who meet property qualifications.

In the end, the press coverage of the suffragette movement was a double-edged sword. It gave the cause national attention, but it also framed the debate in a way that often trivialized the women’s demands. Yet the persistence of the suffragettes, their use of the press, and their eventual contribution to the war effort led to a partial victory. The primary sources—newspapers, speeches, and letters—reveal that the fight for the vote was not only a political battle but also a battle over the story. The press shaped how Britain saw the suffragettes, and the suffragettes fought back with their own words and deeds. Their legacy is not just the 1918 Act, but the understanding that the media is a battleground for social change.