To What Extent Did The Campaigns For Women Suffrage Lead To Women Gaining The Vote?

Laura Paterson 11CY

Candidate no.- 1174

To What Extent Did The Campaigns For Women Suffrage

Lead To Women Gaining The Vote?

Throughout the nineteenth century, the suffragists and the suffragettes worked hard campaigning for women suffrage. Finally, in 1918, the vote was given to women, but only women over thirty. But suffrage campaigns, although important, were not the only reason that the franchise was granted. Some other reasons include, a fear of the return of suffragette activity, the government following an international trend, the government making changes to the voting system anyway, and the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, being more sympathetic to the cause that the previous Prime Minister was.

The long-term factor was, in fact, the suffrage campaigns. Both the suffragists and the suffragettes had very different styles of campaigning. The suffragist’s tactics were based on putting steady pressure on politicians, by holding lectures, organising marches, publishing leaflets and gathering petitions. They were led by Millicent Fawcett, and the group consisted of mainly middle class women, although many working class women were recruited. However, the suffragette’s tactics were nearly the opposite, for they used militant tactics to attract as much attention as they could. They were a breakaway group, and were led by Emmeline Pankhurst. The militant methods that they used were very violent and radical. They felt that the only way to gain suffrage was to show extreme force. ‘Never before [had the British ruling class] awarded the vote without some show of force’, stated Emmeline Pankhurst. They thought that politicians would never be able to ignore them, if they were always in the spotlight. Some examples of the tactics used are, deliberately being sent to prison, hunger strike, arson attacks and sabotage campaigns.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The suffragists had mixed feelings about this type of tactic. On one hand they admired the heroism of the suffragettes. This was demonstrated by Millicent Fawcett herself (leader of the suffragists), ‘the violence suffered by the suffragettes has been formidable…what those who endures who underwent the hunger strike and the anguish of force feeding can hardly be overestimated. Their courage made a deep impression on the public.’ But on the other hand, the violence put off MP’s who would otherwise support the cause, and the suffragists feared that all their hard work would be wasted. Even though the suffragists weren’t too keen on these methods, they led to political debate, which put the women’s right to vote back on the political agenda. Historian, Paula Bartley believes that the government used the violence as an excuse to withhold the right to vote; they feared that other groups would adopt similar tactics. However, the government and the suffragists were not the only people to oppose the campaigns. The press ridiculed women by portraying suffragettes as ugly middle-aged women, so that they would lose all the respect and support of men that they had worked so hard at gaining.

In 1914, when war was declared, the suffragettes dropped their violent tactics to show their patriotism. Women were set to work in their husband’s places and this process later became known as dilution. From 1915, women moved into ‘war work’, this was when they started work as nurses, in the armed forces and in the voluntary services. All these jobs were deemed unsuitable for women in pre-war years. This made it seem as if the attitudes of men were changing. Working class women started working in munitions factories, shipyards, mines, and agricultural work. Even though women were encouraged to take on men’s jobs, male employers weren’t keen to employ them. They feared that women would work for less money and force men out of jobs.

As soon as the war ended, and men came back from fighting, it was assumed that women would hand their jobs back over to the men. This assumption led to the outrage of most women. Many women had been left as the sole breadwinner, and needed these jobs to provide support for their families. The press began portraying women as, ‘Parasites taking the jobs of the heroes of the day’. When, before the war ended, women were the heroines, which meant that attitudes did not change, but it was a desperate need for workers that provoked a change in society. Therefore there must have been another reason for winning the vote.

The trigger cause was that there were changes being made in the voting system anyway. In 1915, the voting system demanded that to vote, people must have been a resident in this country, for at least a year. This meant that newly returned soldiers, and the people still fighting, were not included. This led to David Lloyd George (who was the war minister at the time), changing the law. Lloyd George felt grateful towards the suffragettes and the suffragists, because he needed women to working the men’s places, during the war, and the suffragists and the suffragettes encouraged this. This may explain why women were included in the changes, because David Lloyd George was sympathetic towards them.

At the time, politicians stated that women’s ‘war work’ brought about the franchise. Women had now won the right to have a say in how the country was run because they had served their country well. But if that was true, why did only women over 30 get the vote, when it was mainly the younger, working class women who did most of the work? It seemed that the government only gave suffrage to the less radical women, and ‘war work’ was not such an important factor after all.

Suffrage campaigns were important to the gaining of the franchise, because without the campaigns, the support, the publicity, the changing opinions and putting the topic back on the political agenda, it is very unlikely that women would have gained the vote. As women hadn’t yet gained the vote by 1914, it proves that even though the suffrage campaigns were important, there was a trigger cause needed.