Why were Women Granted the Vote?

Votes for Women!

On February 6th 1918 the government passed the Representation of the People Act which gave women with property over 30 the right to vote. The next day The Guardian newspaper ran an article in which it said:

"The adoption of women's suffrage is the signal victory of an electoral struggle stretching over two generations and represents the greatest triumph in our day of a generous good sense" (Guardian, 2012).

Christabel Pankhurst in 1918 (Huffingtonpost, 2013)

It is widely believed that it was women's effort during the war which finally persuaded the government to give them the vote. Not all people believed this to be the case though. Christabel Pankhurst thought it more likely that the government was fearful of renewed hostilities on the home front (Purvis, 1995). Recently more historians have come to believe that there is truth to this, overturning the long-held view that their contribution had been more hindrance than help.

There are also a number of political factors that may have helped. Midway through the war with a general election looming the government found itself facing a problem. Under the existing system then men who were away fighting at the front would not fulfill the necessary criteria to be voters as they had not been resident in England for the 12 months preceding the election. As a result an all-party committee drawn from the Houses of Lords and Commons was set up to try and address the problem. Women's suffrage campaigners who had been patriotically biding their time and quietly campaigning saw their chance and began more loudly asking for their requests to be included for consideration in any electoral reforms (Willis, 2006). Foremost among those lobbying were Millicent Fawcett and the NUWSS. 

Dodging the bullet?

 

While it was undoubtedly a victory of sorts there is an argument to say that this was a limited victory (Turner, 2003), given the qualification that it was only granted to women over 30. At the same time as granting votes to a minority of women, the franchise for men was extended to include all adult (In 1918 those over 21) men provided they had been resident in one place for 6 months. Ironically, the majority of women who had been most active in the war effort were still excluded from the franchise (Willis, 2006). By agreeing to limited emancipation, the all-male government of wartime Britain had managed to maintain a male dominated electorate in a society with a larger female population (Turner, 2003).

Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 

Incongruously this act was passed later the same year allowed women over 21 to stand as Members of Parliament (Gaye and Cracknell, n.d) though the same condition would not be extended to the franchise until the passing of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928.

.

The Role of Women in the First World War as an explanation for Female Enfranchisement

Women and Work

When war erupted across Europe in 1914  both Suffragette and Suffragist leaders called on their supporters to cease overt activities and support the rest of the country in the war effort. With extra production needed and many of the men who had traditionally been involved in these industries away fighting there was a shortage of workers (Willis, 2006). Both anxious to aid the country but not blind to opportunity, many of the women's suffrage societies backed the government in recruiting women to fill the resulting gaps. This did not happen immediately though. Many women found their offers to help rejected as men were at once dismissive of women's ability to do 'their' jobs and fearful of what might happen if it proved they could (Turner, 2003). Resentment to women in the workplace continued throughout with employers concerned that they might have to offer equal pay and trade unions fearful that women might take their members jobs. Most men rejected the idea that women deserved equal status in the workplace and feared the seemingly inevitable domestic change. As a result the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act 1919 was passed to help ensure that things would return 'normal' (Purvis, 1995).

Women and War  

Many women wanted to help and be seen helping the war effort in an even more visible way. Doctors Louisa Garret Anderson (whom you may remember was the first British female doctor) and  Flora Murray were determined to do military work. Knowing that their offers of assistance were unlikely to receive more than lip-service by the British authorities they went directly to the French and found themselves on the way to Paris as early as September 1914. As the war progressed and the fighting got bloodier more and more women found their offers of assistance accepted and then welcomed in ever varying roles. By the end of the war there were a number of ways women could enter service (Turner, 2003) including:

• ·        Voluntary Aid Detachments
• ·        First Aid Nursing Yeomanry
• ·        Women's Army Auxiliary Corps
• ·        Women's Royal Naval Service
• ·        Women's Royal Air Force

A Time for Change

It was estimated that there were around 700,000 women involved in the highly dangerous munitions industry and as many as 200,000 employed in government administration roles that would not have been previously available to them (Simkin, 2014). Despite many of the positions not being on a parity with those of men in terms of pay or workplace rights no-one could deny their contribution was invaluable. It was clear that it was going to be a hard job continuing to deny women the vote after the war. Who could argue that it was reasonable to allow women the right to die for their country and yet have no choice in how it was to be governed.

Emily Wilding Davison (1872-1913) and the Kings Horse (Anmer, 1910-?)

Earlier Life

Emily Wilding Davison was the daughter of Charles Davison (1822–1893) and Margaret Caisley Davison (1848–1918), and was born at at Roxburgh House, Vanbrugh Park Road, Greenwich on 11th October, 1872 (Simkin, 1997). She was educated to first-class honours standard at Royal Holloway College and Oxford Universities, though as graduation was not open to women at the time was unable to claim her degree (BBC, 2014).

Emily and WSPU

Emily joined the Women's Social and Political Union in 1906 becoming an active campaigner, and three years later gave up her teaching job in order to devote herslf to the campaign full-time. Having already been arrested a number of occasions, in 1909 she earned herself a month in Manchester's Strangeways Prison after throwing rocks at the then chancellor, David Lloyd-George's carriage(BBC, 2014). She found herself one of the many campaigners who suffered the indignity of being force-fed. In protest at this treatment she barricaded herself in her cell, only being removed when authorities aimed a fire-hose at her and broke down her cell door - something she later successfully claimed damages of forty shillings for. On another occasion she threw herself over the prison staircase, though to no avail as having suffered only minor injuries was still judged fit enough to endure another bout of force-feeding with the dreaded nasal tube (Turner, 2003).
During the 1911 census boycott Emily protested by hiding herself in a cupboard in the House of Commons crypt, forcing officials to record this as her home. Today a plaque in the chapel of St. Mary Undercroft erected personally by the late Tony Benn MP commemorates this act(UK Parliament, 2014).

Emily and the Kings Horse

Unfortunately Emily Davison's most famous act was also to prove her last. On 4 June 1913 she stepped out and grabbed the reins of Anmer, the king's horse, at the Epsom Derby. Having sustained heavy injuries she died four days later in hospital and in doing so became a martyr to the cause of women's suffrage. Her funeral was attended by over 6,000 women bearing banners and wearing the WSPU colours protesting for women's suffrage (Greer, 2013). It is still a point of debate for historians whether she deliberatley sacrificed herself for the cause, but this seem unlikely as she was found to have a return train ticket and Summer fair ticket for use later that same day and had been due to go on holiday with her sister soon after... She was also found to have writing paper, pen and stamps in her possession, common tools of the trade for an intrepid campaigner fearing arrest. It has been suggested that her true intention was to attach a flag to the horse and there can be no doubt this would have been a highly effective publicity stunt (BBC, 2013). 

While Davison's actions were saluted by many others sent her hatemail and branded her an anarchist even as she lay dying. Perhaps surprisingly, Herbert Jones, Anmer's jockey on that fateful day afterwards said he was "haunted by that poor woman's face" and at the funeral of WSPU leader Emmeline Pankhurst in 1928 laid a wreath "to do honour to the memory of Mrs Pankhurst and Miss Emily Davison".

Black Friday

November 18^th 1910. Emmeline Pankhurst led a deputation of three hundred women of WSPU to the House of Commons to protest after yet another bill proposing to give women the vote had failed to be given due attention in parliament. Having called a truce earlier that same year to allow the Liberal government led by noted anti-suffragist Herbert Asquith (Simkin, 2014) to debate this same bill the Suffragettes were not best pleased. Action by WSPU could surely only have been expected. What could not have been was the brutality of the response.

Violence on 'Black Friday' (Hastingspress.co.uk, 2014)

There are few concrete reports of events over the four days that the protest took place, though this is hardly surprising given the extent of the censorship that a seemingly shameful yet shameless government exhibited. Some reports suggest that as many as 6000 police were pitched against the 300 women protesting (Demattio, 2013). A file in the National Archives (MEPO 3/203) contains documents which show that women were abused verbally, physically and even sexually both by the police and members of watching crowds, many of whom are thought to have been policemen in plain clothes. One memo to the Home Office suggests that police believed that in addition to preventing the women reaching the House of Commons this was all part of their duty (Turner, 2003).
Other documents seem to paint a different picture, such as this report  by PC George Bingham who stated of events on November 22nd 1910 that "In all cases the women went voluntarily & quietly, and I did not see one case of any PC having to handle his prisoner.  They were all treated kindly & courteously" (Nationalarchives.gov.uk, 2014). The above picture would seem to tell quite a different story.

Hunger Strikes and the Cat and Mouse Act

The First Hunger Striker

Marion Wallace-Dunlop had been an active campaigner for women’s suffrage from at least 1900 when she had joined the Central Society for Women’s Suffrage. When in 1905 the frustrated members of WSPU decided to become more militant in order to gain publicity for their cause this course of action appealed to her. Following a demonstration on June 30^th 1908 Wallace-Dunlop was arrested and had her first taste of prison life which she found deeply affecting.

In 1909 she was again arrested, this time for wilfully damaging the stonework of the House of Commons by stamping it with a rubber stamp. Upon being found guilty of this crime she refused to pay the imposed fine and as a result was again sent to prison. Political prisoners such as the Fenians in the 1860s usually enjoyed much better conditions than usual, but the female suffrage campaigners were afforded no such luxury. Once Wallace-Dunlop was installed in Holloway prison she decided to protest this unjust treatment and embarked on a hunger strike, petitioning the prison governor:

“I claim the right recognized by all civilized nations that a person imprisoned for a political offence should have first-division treatment; and as a matter of principle, not only for my own sake but for the sake of others who may come after me, I am now refusing all food until this matter is settled to my satisfaction.”

This was the first recorded instance, but proved to set quite a precedent. After fasting for 91 hours the decision was taken to release her for fear she might starve. Although the decision to take this action was hers and hers alone, in proving successful her fellow suffrage campaigners realised they had a new weapon (Simkin, 2014). Marion Wallace-Dunlop ceased to be an active campaigner in 1911, but her contribution to the cause would not be forgotten and in 1928 she was one of the pallbearers at the funeral of Emmeline Pankhurst (Simkin, 2014).

Hunger strikes and force feeding

The suffragettes were quick to realise the value of going on hunger strike if and when they were imprisoned. The government could hardly let them die and become martyrs and so many to follow Marion Wallace-Dunlop’s example. At first this proved successful and many women were released until King Edward VII intervened. In a letter to the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone he questioned why this was the case when there were other ways to deal with the situation. Unwilling to release any more suffragette campaigners the prison authorities took drastic action and by September 1909 had adopted the policy of force feeding these prisoners. Many viewed this procedure as nothing short of torture and a public outcry ensued. In spite of this force feeding continued to take place right up the cease of suffragette militancy at the onset of the First World War (Turner, 2003). In some ways this played in to the suffragettes hands as the publicity given to this barbaric behaviour of a supposedly liberal government served to highlight the injustice of the women’s treatment. Such publicity was bought at a very high price though as the procedure was not only extremely painful but injurious to both body and spirit, possibly even fatal.

Lady Constance Lytton was one of many women who had to endure this ordeal and described it as follows:

“Two of the women (wardresses) took hold of my arms, one held my head and one my feet. One wardress helped to pour the food. The doctor leant on my knees as he stooped over my chest to get at my mouth. I shut my mouth and clenched my teeth. The sense of being overpowered by more force that I could possibly resist was complete, but I resisted nothing except with my mouth. The doctor offered me the choice of a wooden or steel gag; he explained that the steel gag would hurt and the wooden one would not, and he urged me not to force him to use the steel one. But I did not speak nor open my mouth, so after playing about for a moment or two with the wooden one he finally had recourse to the steel.

The pain of it was intense; he got the gag between my teeth, when he proceeded to turn it much more than necessary until my jaws were fastened wide apart, far more than they could go naturally. Then he put down my throat a tube, which seemed to me much too wide and was something like four feet long. The irritation of the tube was excessive. I choked the moment I touched my throat until it had gone down. Then the food was poured in quickly; it made me sick a few seconds after it was down and the action of the sickness made my body and legs double up, but the wardresses instantly pressed back my head and the doctor leant on my knees. The horror of it was more than I can describe.

I had been sick over my hair, all over the wall near my bed, and my clothes seemed saturated with vomit. The wardresses told me that they could not get a change (of clothes) as it was too late, the office was shut.” (historylearningsite.co.uk, 2014)

Her dentist was later to confirm the damage to her teeth and it is believed that a combination of this treatment, conditions in prison and the hunger striking itself led to a worsening of her pre-existing heart condition. Lady Lytton was just one of many women who experienced this with some such as Grace Roe and Kitty Marion being force fed more than 200 times (Purvis, 2009).

Eventually pressure from both the public and enraged MP’s combined with escalating embarrassment forced the Liberal government under the leadership of Herbert Asquith to introduce the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act, commonly known as the Cat and Mouse Act due to the way it toyed with protesters as a cat does with it’s prey, releasing them only for them to be recaptured later once their health was restored. Many, including Christabel Pankhurst went on the run rather than face further torture in this fashion

Political alliances of WSPU and NUWSS

If all suffrage campaigners shared the same goal  then it raises the question of why there were so many different groups? It seems unlikely that it simply individuals who could not work together, though there would undoubtedly have been some personal differences there were also fundamental differences in approach and politics that set the groups apart...

Inside the NUWSS

The most prominent group was the NUWSS. Established in 1897 it's leadership included women from diverse political backgrounds including Millicent Fawcett (wife of Liberal MP Henry Fawcett), Lady Frances Balfour (an aristocrat), Helen Blackburn (daughter of an Irish engineer), Priscilla Bright McLaren (a radical liberal), Eleanor Rathbone (later an independent MP) and Eva Gore-Booth (an Irish poet and Labour activist) (Nationalarchives.go.uk, 2014). It began as a federation of several large local societies, acting primarily as a liaison and co-ordinator with no-power over it's members with a  broadly democratic constitution. The organisation grew and by 1907 found it necessary to reorganise. The new constitution gave the leaders executive power to make decisions. Some of the provincial socities were unhappy with this as they felt that the executive had a conservative bias at odds with their more democratic ideals. This split eventually led to a decentralisation into regional federations in 1910 though not without objection from the executive (Harris, 2007).

Inside WSPU and the formation of the Women's Freedom League (WFL)

The WSPU was formed in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst with her daughters Sylvia and Christabel. The rule of the Pankhurst's was semi-dictatorial. Often the leaders took action without even communicating to members that anything was to take place. Some began to take exception to the direction and actions the WSPU was taking in their name and voiced their concerns prompting Emmeline Pankhurst to declare that she intended to run the organisation without interference during a conference in 1907 (Simkin, 2014). In response several prominent members including Charlotte Despard and Theresa Billington-Grieg decided to break away and formed the Women's Freedom League. The WFL was still a militant organisation but in contrast to WSPU was run as a democracy. while not afraid to defy the law they disagreed with the violent methods of the WSPU and confined themselves to passive protests such as refusal to pay taxes((Simkin, 2014).

Party Political

Although those in favour of women's suffrage were united by a common cause, the politics of individuals were as varied as seen anywhere else and the same was true of their opponents. Early support for the movement seemed to be mainly within the Liberal party, as evidenced by John Stuart Mill when he delivered Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon's petition for the enfranchisement of women to Parliament in 1866. Support from individuals could be seen across the political spectrum. It was sometimes questionable however, as to whether this was offered from an ideological standpoint of shared principles or with a view to party political gain. There were certainly some Liberal MP's who feared the advantages they believed the Conservatives would gain if the vote was granted to women on the same terms as men. They believed that in effect all that would happen was that a million upper and middle class tory voters would be created in one fell swoop. Many of the male politicians of both key parties feared the erosion of traditional family roles that may ensue if women were distracted from their home duties. Ironically given the fears of the other parties regarding the suffragists political persuasion, there seems to have been very little support within the Conservative Party!

Alliances of NUWSS and WSPU

When the NUWSS was established in 1897 it had a constitution that strictly forbade any party political affiliation, though as we have seen members still had their individual politics. In 1909 disillusioned with Asquith's Liberal government many members were advocating an alliance with the Labour Party. This was not the first time women's suffrage campaigners had found common cause with the left-wing. In 1903 WSPU had been linked to the Independent Labour Party (which later became an affiliate of the Labour Party) whose leader Keir Hardie was known to be committed to the idea of equality in the franchise. This proved to be more a marriage of convenience than shared principles (beyond those of gender equality). Many ILP members viewed WSPU as serving middle-class interests because they were campaigning for suffrage on equal terms with men, with the result that in the 1906 election WSPU offered support only for known pro-suffrage candidates such as Keir Hardie. These fears were echoed amongst the Labour politicians the NUWSS were later to seek an alliance with. The move towards alliance with Labour was also resisted by Millicent Garrett Fawcett who wished to maintain a policy of neutrality. However, following the failure of the Conciliation Bills of 1910, 1911 and 1912 (the first of which had led to Black Friday) and a vote at the 1912 Labour Party conference to include women in any franchise reform, an alliance was formed. 

And so...

It is virtually impossible to summarise the politics of the suffrage movement other than to recognise it's diversity. It is well put by June Purvis in her book:
"Far from speaking with one voice, feminists disagreed about the basis and nature of women's oppression and how it should be reformed" (Purvis, 1995).

WSPU v NUWSS

Despite having a common goal the NUWSS and WSPU had very different ideas about how to achieve it. The table below compares some of the key characteristics of their organisations.

Title	NUWSS – National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies	WSPU – Women’s Social and Political Union
Aims	Initially just to get the vote for women they expanded into campaigning for women’s rights in other aspects of life including domestic and employment issues.	Votes for Women
Tactics	Passive and Legal – They believed in achieving women’s suffrage through conventional means such as lobbying parliament and peaceful protest.	Militant – The vote would be won by any means necessary including violence. Campaigns included arson, vandalism and stone throwing.
Structure	Democratic and Constitutional – Decisions were usually voted on and the leadership had no authority over member organisations.	Autocratic – The Pankhursts had absolute control and were dismissive of any who did not agree with them. This led to splits, particularly with those who did not like some of the violent tactics such as the Pethick-Lawrences
Politics	Officially non-political, though many members were in some way connected to the Liberals - Millicent Fawcett had been married to Liberal MP Henry Fawcett. Also some Conservative connections. Later they were to form an alliance with Labour who had committed themselves to equality in the franchise.	Initially associated with the Independent Labour Party with whom some members had association they soon became at odds with most politicians by virtue of their violent tactics!
Membership	Open to all including men by 1914 had over 50,000 members.	Estimates are unclear but some say as high as 125,000 (Wikipedia, 2014)! No men allowed.
Colours	Red, White and Green	Purple, White and Green
Life	1897 to ? Continued to campaign on women’s rights issues after the vote had been won.	1903 to 1918 – With the vote granted to women there was no longer a need for their militant tactics.