To what extent did the work done by women during World War 1 gain them the vote rather than the Suffragette campaign before the war?

Pre 1918 the electoral roll was extremely different, even without women.  It was not until 1867 that men over 21 were allowed to vote: and this enfranchisement was only allowed to those who paid rents, which varied according to whether they lived in boroughs or in the counties, annually in rent. Men had struggled for the vote since the late eighteenth century.  Men felt that the wealthy landowners suppressed them, and even when men were given the vote, the landowners and industrialists (those to whom they owed their employment) bribed and indoctrinated them, until the secret ballot was introduced in 1872.   When men achieved emancipation, many women were outraged that they were excluded. The reason given by parliament was that there had already been a dramatic increase in the electorate, and that a bigger increase would cause difficulties. According to accounts by Suffragettes the reason was that politicians felt that women were unworthy of the vote, as their lack of intellect made them incapable of political decision and would vote Conservative if they were given the vote.  

The women’s Suffrage movement comprised two strands, the moderate strand developed from the ideals of Millicent Garrett Fawcett and the better known “suffragettes” formed at the beginning of the twentieth century by Emmeline Pankhurst and her small band of followers.  When the women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), entered the political scene, they brought with them a more militant and outrageous era in the fight for ‘Votes for Women’.

In their early days, both movements tended to be middle class but by the turn of the century thousands of working class women joined their ranks. Many of the improvements in their working conditions had been gained through the work of the feminist movement and gradually these women came to embrace the ideals of their activist sisters.  Suffrage was less important to these women but the crusade for sexual equality must have gained credibility and respect from a section of the population, both men and women.

On the other hand, however, the move towards militancy in the early years of the twentieth century generated much hostility amongst people who had sympathised with the cause. Many were unable to distinguish between the militants and non-militants and there was a decline in sympathy for the whole movement.  The high profile militancy of the Suffragettes, it can be argued, led in part to the rejection of Asquith’s 1911 bill which proposed that propertied women should get the vote if there was a moratorium on demonstrations at the King’s coronation.  

During the late nineteenth century, a small group of educated women, in Manchester, and surrounding area, started to protest strongly about the unequal franchise in the United Kingdom.  Their group led by Lydia Becker and Millicent Fawcett, began to petition for enfranchisement.  Their argument was that the government allowed disreputable men to vote, but failed to realise that female landowners with money and connections, simple honest housewives, society ladies, and working class mothers were probably far more capable of sound decision-making.  This all hinged on men’s lack of understanding that many women were now well-educated even though they still needed permission to attend lectures and were not allowed to obtain the degrees for which they were qualified to hold.  Women had started to question men’s motives in their actions.Their demands for rights were confidently argued and strongly political.  

In the opinion of some writers, for example Joyce Marlow, it was the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies led by Millicent Garret Fawcett who won votes for women and not the Suffragettes.  During the years of arson and bombing, these women noted the rise of the Labour Party, took account of its liberalism towards women’s enfranchisement, and worked hard to form an alliance with them.  These politically motivated women were amongst the many other non-militant groups who lobbied for the inclusion of women in the 1918 Franchise Act.  

This group of non-militant feminists had worked in many areas of social reform well before the outbreak of war.  An example of this is obtaining safer and healthier working conditions for female workers at Briant and May’s match factory following the matchgirls’ strike which had come about through working women’s recruitment to the cause.  In this way they had made their mark amongst men who supported them in and out of parliament and upon whom they were completely dependent for the achievement of their principle causes – sexual equality and the right to vote.  These non-militant women had increased their standing and their credibility so much that, had Britain had a Prime Minister who was sympathetic to the feminists’ cause, enfranchisement might have been achieved much earlier than 1918.  This is reinforced by the fact that women on the Isle of Man were enfranchised in 1881!

The election of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as Prime Minister in 1905 proved to be the trigger that released the pent up frustration of the militant feminists, marking the beginning of the period of violence and civil disturbance for which the movement is best known.  He resigned in 1906 and H H Asquith became Prime Minister.  He had initially been sympathetic to the women’s cause but the continuing campaign of violence made it difficult for him to continue to be supportive.    

Christabel Pankhurst set up an arson campaign in 1911, which led to mail boxes set alight, bombs sent through windows, attempted arson on the Home Secretary: David Lloyd George’s newly built house, and many other actions.   The Suffragettes, during the seven months running up to July 1914 participated in arson on eleven works of art in the National Gallery.  An insurance company estimated that the Suffragettes caused £250,000 worth of damage in the first seven months of 1914.    This alienated a huge section of the population.  It has to be remembered that, whilst many men and women supported the cause for enfranchisement, there were far more who were opposed to it.  Angered by the actions of the Suffragettes, these people helped to return the Liberals to power, albeit with a reduced majority.  From this it could be argued that, had there been less violence, the outcome of the 1910 election might have been different.  

The following four years saw continuing acts of arson and bombing, jailing and force-feeding which ended only with the outbreak of was in 1914.  In 1912 the Labour Party declared itself to be in support of the women’s enfranchisement and the NUWSS/Labour alliance was formed.  Women were hopeful that the 1912 Reform Bill with its inclusion of women would be successful.  

“The passing of the Reform Bill with the inclusion of women will be the outward and visible sign of a profound psychological change in the attitude of men towards women and of women towards society – it marks the growth of ideas.”

   

The Bill, however failed in 1913 following an alleged conspiracy between H H Asquith and the speaker of the House of Commons.  This might suggest that with a more pro-Suffrage Prime Minister, some level of enfranchisement may have happened before the war.  Asquith is reputed to have ruled that the inclusion of women in the Bill would alter it so much that it would have to be rewritten and presented in the future.  This was the rejection that fuelled the Suffragettes’ rage.  

It is at this point that I believe the outbreak of the Great War became a significant factor in the struggle for enfranchisement.  In 1913 David Lloyd George addressed the Men’s Suffrage union, telling them that he could not push unpopular bill through parliament.  He went on to say that the only two ways to do so were either “a great wave of enthusiasm” or by using political means.  

The outbreak of war stopped the Suffragettes’ campaign in its tracks as they rallied to support the country.  They stopped being militant and concentrated their efforts on the war effort.  This turned out to be rather productive, and the feel within the Suffragette movement was positive over all. Mrs Pankhurst said at the outbreak of war: - ‘It was a war to prevent France the mother of European democracy …from being crushed by the over-sexed, that is to say over-masculine, country of Germany’.  Some feminists went further, however and claimed that feminism also required pacifism, and although the main feeling in the Suffragette movement was positive, there was a small group of women that condemned the act of war; and this group joined the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Peace Council.  These two groups were militant organisations campaigning for suffrage, although they also campaigned for pacifism, and thus condemned war.  Even though this move split up a force of women in emancipation, it also showed many people that women had strong opinions and that they could hold this opinion with pride and stand by them.  Women were a force to be reckoned with.  

Meanwhile women were allowed for the first time to go into certain job areas that they were denied a year earlier.  Women from all backgrounds helped in the war effort, many of them working in the munitions factories to produce ammunition for the soldiers in the front lines.  Women took up posts all over the country, and sometimes as doctors and nurses on the front line, as civilians attached to the army.  The call to war work had a severe effect on the ability of the upper class to retain female servants.  The British government was pleased by the Suffragettes willingness to participate, and this, as well as pressure form other feminist groups like then the WFL, and the WPC, made the politicians think about women and the vote again.  With the war lingering on, women felt under more pressure to participate in war work, to try and save their country from loosing the war.  Women’s opinions about their suffrage increased, as they felt that they were participating in the war effort as much as the enfranchised men.  The politicians of the time stated that the Suffragettes were taking a mature attitude to the crisis.  

Amongst the women were a group who believed that they should work to support their country but were against the enfranchisement of women.  This movement was the Anti-Suffrage movement.  The Anti movement tried very hard to persuade MP’s not to support the suffrage movement.   The Anti’s worked as hard at war work as any other group during the war.  They worked continuously but produced economic, religious or physical arguments such as ‘Why should women be given the same rights as men when they only do a quarter of the work?’ and The Bible states that “a women is only three fifths of a man.”  Another argument used by the Antis was that women were too physically weak to be able to help ion the war, ands thus why should they be able to vote?  The heavy industrial work of the women in munitions factories making guns and tanks rendered this argument invalid.  

The government took a dim view of the “Anti”s and found them a difficult group to understand as they were campaigning against their own sex and against women’s suffrage.  Why were women trying to say that they were unworthy of the vote?  They found this confusing and were unsure about the stability of certain sectors of women.  Was it right, therefore, to give all women the vote?  Even though MP’s were unsure about this, they were certain that women were showing themselves to be a positive influence and responsible group of people.  This was a positive response to emancipation, and brought the issue another step closer to being resolved.  

Women finally gained the right to vote in 1918, the year that the Great war ended, although it is interesting to note that the group given voting rights were those over thirty years of age, the women least likely to have been evolved in war work.  It would appear on the surface that enfranchisement was given as a reward for their war work in which they proved themselves to be capable of tasks previously done by men.  I think that the 1914-1918 war effected the decision to enfranchise women but I feel that it was not the only factor.  At the end of the war, the loss of life caused a sharp dip in the male population and if only men could vote, this would have an effect on future elections.  Enfranchising women increased the electorate considerably.   The victory over Germany produced a feeling of euphoria, and defences against enfranchisement were lowered as a result of this, allowing the pro-suffragists to win.  Alienating the women who had kept the country running for four years would not have been helpful in an economic crisis in which there was a severe shortage of male labour.  In comparison with the economic disaster facing the British government in 1918, the issue of female emancipation appears almost insignificant.  

Brian Harrison also suggested that the government feared a return of pre-war Suffragette violence and gave in to pressure.  

I believe that the women who worked for Britain in the Great War did help to gain enfranchisement but I would argue that this was only the final stage in the struggle.  The fact that only older women were only given the vote could suggest that, as the majority of the pre-war feminist campaigners tended to be in the age group, their persuasion over many decades had played it’s part in influencing enfranchisement.  As the Labour Party had declared its support for women’s suffrage in 1912, it is also very likely that enfranchisement would have been granted with the eventual election of a Labour government.  

My investigation brings me to conclude that the enfranchisement of women came about as a result of many years of persuasion and argument in a male-dominated society and a growing awareness of the need to influence through political debate and alliances.  The First World War, too, was a highly significant event in the struggle owing to the grinding economic crisis which gripped the country in the years directly after it. In addition, the War provided women with the opportunity to demonstrate the extent of their abilities at a time when they were most needed. The outbreak of the Great War also generated immense patriotism and the need to support Britain in its struggle against Germany. This led the Suffragettes to abandon their outrageous arson and bombing campaigns in favour of the war effort. These circumstances undoubtedly helped women to achieve the first steps to full enfranchisement.

A Timeline of the process of enfranchisement for women

Bibliography for history coursework

1. ‘ My Own Story’: - Emmeline Pankhurst War Memoirs of David Lloyd George, Volume II.  
2. Aspects of British Political History 1815-1914: - Stephen .J. Lee
3. Mastering Modern British History, Macmillan Series, Second Edition: - Norman Lowe
4. The Virgo book of Suffragettes: - Joyce Marlow
5. The suffragette publicity poster, a copy will be placed in the back of the bibliography.
6. Ahead of her time: A sampler of the life and thought of Mary Woolstonecraft’

: -Mary Woolstonecraft

7. ‘Unshackled’: - Christabel Pankhurst,
8. The First World War and Feminism in Britain’: - Brian Harrison
9. ‘History in Depth- Women in Society 1860-1928’: - Joyce Hodgson
10. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
11. ‘Suffragettes and Votes for Women’: - L.E.Snellgrove.  Franchise and Suffrage.  
12. ‘Votes for Women’: - Rodger Fulford
13. Nineteenth Century Britain’: - Anthony Wood.
14. ‘The act of Militancy: and the Suffragettes, 1904-1914’: - Brian Harrison    
15. ‘Women and the Women’s movement in Britain 1914-1959’: - M.D. Pugh
16. ‘The History Review, Issue 16 1993.’
17. ‘A Social History of Medicine- Health, Healing and Disease in England, 1750-1950

        : - Joan Lane

18. ‘The Opposition to Women’s Suffrage in Britain’: - Brian Harrison  
19. The Petticoat Rebellion: A Century of Struggle for Women’s Rights’: - Marian Ramelson

20. The Longman handbook of Modern British History by Chris Cooke and John Stevenson

---