Votes For Women - Source related study.

Katherine Mann

Votes For Women – Coursework Assignment Two

Source A depicts pictorially a list of positive roles a woman could have at the time and a list of negative things a man could have been. It shows that while a woman could be a respected member of society she was still not allowed to vote, whereas a man could be a criminal or unfit in the eyes of society yet still have the vote. The poster is a peaceful means of protest, yet quite crude in the way it is presented, for example it contains bold drawings of a “drunkard” and “proprietor of white slaves”. Other pictures, such as those of a “lunatic” and one “unfit for service” were compared directly above to possible female positions of a “nurse” and “doctor or teacher” respectively. These are the closest opposites in roles that existed at the time so are effective in comparison. The main implication of the picture is that a man could vote whatever his stature, be it worthless or not, but a woman could not either way. The poster is a useful source as it shows the law of the time, 1912, that all men could vote no matter what they had been but women could not. This was unjust from the women’s point of view and added to their frustration at not being allowed the vote. The designers of the poster used it to illustrate the double standards employed by the Government.

Source C is a cartoon by Bernard Partridge drawn in 1906 of two female suffrage campaigners. One is a Suffragist, meaning a member of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (who campaigned using peaceful methods) and the other is a Suffragette, a member of the Women’s Social and Political Union, which was a more militant organisation that used violence in their protest. The caption reads, “The Shrieking Sister,” and the implication of the picture is that the Suffragettes only made the campaign situation worse for both groups by being uncivilised. They were effectively undermining the actions of the Suffragists by their behaviour. The evidence taken from Source C is that the movement was split, therefore not working as efficiently as it might. The artist is more likely to be correct in this observation as the artist is a man, therefore his opinion is derived from watching both groups’ tactics from a distance, as opposed to campaigning with them, and making a final judgement. The opinion of many onlookers was that women were just being hysterical and so they often weren’t taken seriously. An example of this is in a letter to The Times by Dr Almroth Wright on 27th March 1912. Wright was a doctor at St Mary’s Hospital in London and claimed the “militant suffragists” were merely “sexually embittered women.” Whilst angering the women further, many others agreed with Wright’s point and it was the attitude of many MP’s. Written in 1925 but referring to the dramatic Suffragette attacks on churches and other public buildings of 1913, the Speaker of the House of Commons commented on the lack of sympathy for the women the House now had. He wrote that the “extravagant and lawless action of the militants hardened the opposition to their demands.”

Source B is from a book called “Woman or Suffragette,” written in 1907 by Marie Corelli. She is sympathetic to the women’s cause yet sees a problem not apparently recognised by MP’s and other important figures. Corelli directly calls the women “shrill,” agreeing with the artist of Source C’s title, “shrieking”. Whilst she also agrees that women “suffer great injustice at the hands of men,” Corelli states that it is the fault of these women in the first place for the way they brought their sons up. This is an interesting comparison to the opinion of Jessica Amanda Salmonson, writing in 1998 that Corelli “ofttimes affected to be an actual man-hater, having avowed ‘such hatred and disgust for the male portion of our species…’ ” in that Source B implies she is against women, not men.

Source B is similar to Source C in that they both note flaws in the protest, Corelli stating it is the women’s fault that they suffer and Partridge claiming the violent Suffragettes only add problems to the campaign. It does not, however, openly support the evidence of the cartoon. The evidence in Source C is that the two suffrage groups were divided and did not get along and the evidence in Source B is that the women had brought their problems on themselves by bringing up their sons wrongly. Both sources do outline problems faced by the women through their protest but they are different problems.

When the Liberal Government was elected in 1906, women’s suffrage protesters were hopeful that their campaign would be successful and they would be granted the vote. The new Prime Minister, Henry Campbell-Bannermann, was in favour of votes for women. The Liberals had won a landslide victory, so also had the support of the Irish, Labour and Trade Union MP’s. In 1908 Campbell-Bannermann was replaced by Herbert Asquith as Prime Minister. He was another Liberal politician but was against giving women the vote, as he thought they would all vote Conservative and the Liberals would consequently lose power. This did not help the women’s cause.

With regard to women’s suffrage, the Liberals had more important matters to deal with. As a result of support from Labour, they were being pressed to change the Trade Union law, and the Irish Nationalists were pushing for a Home Rule Bill in Ireland. Other domestic reforms were being attempted, such as improving poverty and ill health, which also seemed more important than votes for women. By 1909 laws were passed to improve children’s health and an old age pension act was passed for the first time. As a result of this large expenditure, taxes were raised and so the Liberal Government was not popular in the (mainly Conservative) House of Lords. This meant a general election in 1910 had to be won by a majority to stay in power, and votes for women was not a popular policy in general.

Along with this, there were a number of major strikes from 1908 and mass demonstrations by anarchists and others regarding trade unions. The Government had to deal with these, sometimes using armed troops, and did not have time for suffrage campaigners. India, a major part of the British Empire, was also trying to break away from British control at the time. Finally, growing concerns over the political situation in Europe ensured the Government was not prepared to fully back the women’s plight.

The Labour Party had previously been supporters of women’s suffrage. However, as the general election of 1906 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Labour Party had previously been supporters of women’s suffrage. However, as the general election of 1906 approached they realised that votes for women would not earn them votes as a party. Also, they noticed the WSPU only wanted votes for women as men had them; part of their policy was “to secure for women the parliamentary vote as it is or may be granted to men.” This would mean only householders could vote. Householders, according to general opinion, would usually vote Conservative so the Labour Party would not be helping itself by supporting women’s suffrage.

It was clear to the Suffragettes that the Government’s priorities were elsewhere, and the WSPU felt they were just stalling for time. As a result of this, from 1906 they escalated their protest, bringing more violent tactics into the campaign. The Suffragettes attacked politicians and public buildings, sent letter bombs and fought with police. In October 1906, eleven Suffragettes were arrested outside the House of Commons. They were fined but refused to pay so were sent to prison and not allowed to write or receive letters or visitors. The women used this as propaganda to try and get people’s sympathy at their mistreatment, so were released before completing their sentences to stop them using it as an advantage. More and more women were getting arrested for violent behaviour and consequently the WSPU was losing support. Many members felt they were only making the situation worse by not co-operating with the Liberals at all. The WSPU still appealed to others to join them but many women would join the NUWSS because they didn’t agree with the degree of violence employed by the Suffragettes.

In September 1907 the Women’s Freedom League was established – it worked alongside the WSPU but did not use the same amount of violence. While both groups still campaigned as avidly as before, the small split did not help their cause. They invented more new ways of protesting, throwing stones being a popular one. Windows at 10 Downing Street were broken using stones, women chained themselves to railings around Parliament and Downing Street and one Suffragette, Flora Drummond, got into No.10 and had to be removed by members of the Cabinet. Emmeline Pankhurst and her followers were often arrested for their actions, but they defied their prison sentences in a number of ways. In her story to Good Housekeeping in July 1914 Pankhurst states, "The Suffragettes marched by thousands to Holloway, crowding the approaches to the prison. Round and round the jail they marched, sing the 'Women's Marseillaise,' and cheering."

In July 1909, Marion Dunlop-Wallace became the first Suffragette to go on hunger strike. She had been sent to Holloway Prison for damaging the walls of the Houses of Parliament by stamping messages on them. Dunlop-Wallace refused to eat at all in prison so was released after a few days. Many other Suffragettes saw this as a good tactic to use, so it became a popular way of getting out of prison quickly. However, the Government felt they were being taken advantage of so started force feeding women who refused to eat in prison, thus ruining the dramatic act of hunger striking. Women were first inspected by a doctor to make sure they were able to withstand having a tube pushed down their throat or nose; this made the process seem more fair to the public. However, Constance Lytton, daughter of Lord Lytton – Viceroy of India, was force fed in 1910 when she had a weak heart. The WSPU made sure this was well publicised as women being unfairly treated and through propaganda got public sympathy again. Lytton had previously been sent to prison for throwing a stone at Lloyd George’s car in October 1909 but was released after two days of hunger strike without being force fed. She was released early because she was a respected middle class woman, unlike some of her fellow campaigners who were treated more roughly. To make this point, Lytton dressed and acted as a working class woman with short hair and cheap clothes and got arrested for leading a riot. She gave her name as Jane Warton, a more plain and simple name. Her sentence was 14 days hard labour but again she went on hunger strike, yet this time she was force fed. The WSPU saw this as a victory – not only were the Government refusing women the vote but they were treating her differently because of her class. Whilst Constance Lytton was paralysed as a result of her force feeding and so was used as a good case against the government, the WSPU had begun to mix their arguments and seemed to be starting to wage two wars against the Government – class discrimination and sex discrimination. This maybe alleviated some of the pressure put on votes for women, thus taking away some of the focus on the original cause.

By 1908, most MPs, including most of the Cabinet, openly supported women’s suffrage. More than 250 candidates stated their support for votes for women in addresses before the general election of 1910. Asquith, the Prime Minister, promised votes for women in the form of a Parliamentary Reform Bill amendment. In 1910 and 1911, therefore, Conciliation Bills (so-called because they only asked for the vote for one million women, so as not to annoy the opposition) were passed with large majorities. Even though only women with complete control over a house, part of a house or a shop could vote (this would mean practically all working women would still be no further) the WSPU supported the Bills as they were better than nothing. But the Bills did not become law – they were passed to a Committee of the Whole House and rejected by the Lords. Asquith then promised that he would introduce a bill for adult suffrage and told the People’s Suffrage Federation of this. But the Suffragettes did not agree with the proposal and attacked it because they wanted a bill just for women, not a general bill which they would be part of. Miss Violet Markham, a Liberal activist, summed this up speaking in 1910: “I regard women as superior and I don’t like to see them trying to become men’s equal.”

Lack of support for the bill resulted in more violence from the Suffragettes. Rallies took place in London, one being outside the Houses of Parliament where over 200 people were arrested, and a new tactic of letter bombs was employed - paraffin-soaked rags were dropped through letterboxes. The infamous day, November 18, 1910, became known as Black Friday as women were brutally beaten by police officers. Emmeline Pankhurst said, "Our women were thrown about, tripped up, their arms and fingers twisted, their bodies doubled under, and then forcibly thrown, if indeed they did not drop stunned to the ground". Three women died shortly after, but Pankhurst persisted in spite of government resistance through letter-burnings, petitions and window smashing. In March 1912 Suffragettes smashed the shop windows in Piccadilly, Regent Street and Oxford Street. Again, over 200 women were arrested and police raided the WSPU headquarters in Bow. Christabel Pankhurst avoided arrest and fled to France. Later that year, Asquith was attacked by Suffragettes and Mary Leigh almost burned down the Theatre Royal Dublin.

Public opinion was not behind the Suffragettes anymore, as a result of their often shocking violent tactics. In 1911 the Anti Suffrage League was established. It quickly gained members and was able to give a petition to Parliament with over 250 000 signatures against votes for women.

In June 1912, Asquith introduced the Franchise and Registration Bill. He planned to make four amendments to get women the vote, but the Speaker of the House of Commons claimed that they would change the Bill so much it would have to be withdrawn. The bill was abolished just six months later. Asquith tried a Private Members Bill to get votes for women but this also failed. Source E is part of a speech by an MP in 1913 stating that he would vote against women’s suffrage, because he believed that in giving women the vote the Government would also give women the “control of the government of this country.” This was the feeling of many MP’s who did not want to see these violent women in charge of the country, but chose to ignore the intelligent, respectable women and their same cause.

Following the failures of the Conciliation Bill and the Franchise and Registration Bill, increased Suffragette violence hardened public support and sympathy for the campaigners and led to Sylvia Pankhurst’s departure from the group. Pankhurst had been the respectable face of the movement, proving they were not all working class violent protestors. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband also left, taking their crucial money with them. They believed the WSPU was becoming too violent and moved to East London to help the poor. Emmeline Pankhurst was by now acting like a dictator, giving all the power to Annie Kenney who was not one to make good decisions or lead well.

On top of no public sympathy, lack of funds and internal disputes, the WSPU faced further problems from the NUWSS. The Suffragists also believed the increased violence was shocking and unnecessary and refused to work alongside them anymore. Without the two groups united, there was less pressure on the government to do anything so their protests were to go unnoticed or at least not recognised. The WSPU still continued to step up their violence, damaging public property such as Oxted Railway Station, Cambridge University Football Pavilion and the Bath Hotel. In March 1914 Mary Richardson slashed the painting “The Rokeby Venus”. Although these tactics got publicity for the WSPU, they still failed to win public support. They often pushed people away and attracted criticism by being too extreme. The government was reluctant to do anything for the women now, as they did not want other people to see violence working.

By the outbreak for the First World War, women had not earned the vote because they had failed to win and keep public support through violence. Had they had the support of the general public, they would have stood a better chance in Parliament. This was mentioned by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1912, according to Source D, but she felt that they had at least been noticed which was a start, “Now the newspapers are full of us.”

Source F is a primary source; it is a poster made during the war. It was produced by the government to get women to enrol as munition workers to help the war effort. The poster uses two photographs, one of a male soldier fighting on a battlefield and one of a woman over the top wearing a factory uniform. Photographs are a useful source as they show the truth, especially early photographs like those used in Source F as they cannot have been tampered with using computers. Government produced posters are often used as propaganda, meaning they do not always tell the truth, rather what the Government would like to be the truth. The line “On her their lives depend,” at the top of the poster was to encourage women to join the war effort. This worked, as the suffrage campaigners had given up their protest at the start of the war in 1914 to channel their energies into helping the country. This is shown in Source G. The poster shows a woman in factory clothing, this means she was working in a man’s job during the war. This would have been used to attract other women to help and maybe the picture has been taken out of context or distorted in some way for propaganda purposes.

Source G is a table of statistics from a text book published in the 1980’s. It shows female employment in Britain in July 1914 and July 1918 and the statistics show the large increase in women’s employment as a result of the war. For example, the amount of women working in Government offices multiplied by over 100 through the four years. The source shows women worked a lot more over the war years than previously by using statistics. It is useful in that it is quantitative, so therefore more likely to be correct fact, not opinion. The source states actual numbers instead of descriptive amounts. This makes it more plausible.

The headings in the table are “metal industries”, “chemical industries”, “government offices”, and “food, drink and tobacco.” These are quite broad definitions, making the data quite crude because it does not actually say what the women did at all, just that they worked in those areas. There is no indication apart from the dates that the women were actively contributing to the war effort; this is only inferred because of the years mentioned. However it can be deduced that they were helping the war effort as these areas of employment were essential to it. For example, the metal industries would make munitions, the chemical industries would make ammunition, the government offices kept records and helped the situation politically and the food, drink and tobacco industry would provide for soldiers and also people at home.

The source may not be entirely correct as all the numbers appear to be rounded up or down to multiples of a thousand, but this does not make much difference when looking to it as evidence of general female employment. Its origins of a school textbook in the 1980’s imply that the statistics are correct, because there is no reason for that type of publication to distort the facts or use them to an advantage.

Many social and political changes happened during the First World War, as described in Source I. This source urges for the changes in women’s social position not to be separated from other changes happening at the time, but the progress made by women over the four war years should not be overlooked as unrelated to the war because there were little other reasons for their parliamentary success in 1918. It was the work that women did during the war that earned them the vote.

When the First World War broke out in summer 1914, Emmeline Pankhurst called off the militant actions of the Suffragettes. The idea was that the women would help the war effort, and Pankhurst encouraged them to. Her daughter Sylvia was arrested for attacking the war, which did not help the already bad image of the WSPU because most of Britain was very patriotic at the time. Christabel and Emmeline Pankhurst organised rallies to recruit other women to help. This was made easier by their already admired status by many women, using it to good advantage. Christabel wrote in her book of 1914, “As Mother said, 'What would be the good of a vote without a country to vote in?’ ”

Many women were recruited to work in men’s jobs during the war, because by the end of 1915 over 2.5 million men were in the armed forces. They left factory jobs which needed filling, then more were created on top of these as the demand for supplies grew. Women worked in textiles factories to make troops’ uniforms and in munitions factories to produce weapons, military vehicles, ammunition and planes. Many left domestic service to work in the war industries, earning themselves high wages but often ill health. Gunpowder and other explosives were dangerous to work with and often gave women diseases and prevented them having children. Some women trained as mechanics to work in the motor industry, making tanks and lorries to send out to Europe.

The work these women did was admired by some, notably Herbert Asquith, who had previously been against votes for women. “Women cannot fight in the sense of going out with rifles and so forth, but they fill our munitions factories, they are doing the work which the men who are fighting had to do before, and they have aided in the most effective way the prosecution of the war,” said Asquith in a speech in August 1916. This was to be a victory for the WSPU, who were not campaigning now most of them had jobs. However, there was still much opposition to female workers. Attitudes remained negative from males who were no longer needed greatly in their jobs, so were vulnerable to conscription. A lot of women worked in peace alongside men, but according to ‘War and Society in Britain 1899-1948’ by Rex Pope (1991), many women were only allowed less skilled jobs and “were victims of hostility and even of sabotage.” Source H agrees with this, stating that in some places of work the women “were greatly resented.” The source claims men felt “happier” when women were given low powered jobs, so as not to intimidate them perhaps. In 1915 there was a series of strikes against women workers. Nearer the beginning of the war, Elsie Inglis, co-founder of the Scottish Women's Suffrage Federation, led a group of women to be nurses on the Western Front. They were rejected by the army and the War Office in Scotland, but three months later the Scottish Women's Hospitals Committee, aided by funding from the NUWSS, were permitted to send a group of nurses to France to work. During the war Inglis arranged fourteen medical units to serve in France, Serbia, Corsica, Salonika, Romania, Russia and Malta. This included doctors, nurses, cooks, ambulance drivers, orderlies and relief-workers. Whilst in Russia, one government official said of the workers, “No wonder England is a great country if the women are like that."

Women also worked in the armed forces during the war. About 45 000 nurses from the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry were supplied, as well as secretaries and drivers from the Voluntary Aid Detachments. In January 1917 the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps was established and soon after, inspired by its success, came the Women’s Royal Navy Force (WRNS) and the Women’s Royal Air Force (WRAF). Sir Geoffrey Paine, the Air Ministry Master General of Personnel, appointed Gertrude Crawford as the WRAF’s first commandant. However, Lady Crawford was expected to be little more than a figurehead and Lieutenant-Colonel Bersey was actually running the service. Unhappy with this situation, Lady Crawford to resigned from the post. She was eventually replaced by Helen Gwynne-Vaughan, and soon 9,000 women had been recruited into the WRAF to work as clerks, fitters, drivers, cooks and storekeepers. Gwynne-Vaughan was a great success as commander of the organisation. Sir Sefton Brancker argued that "the WRAF was the best disciplined and best turned-out women's organization in the country." Gwynne-Vaughan's work was recognised in June 1919, when she was awarded the Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE). This was another victory for women in Britain. The WRNS was also recognised for serving the country. When the Armistice was signed in November 1918 it had 5,000 ratings and nearly 450 officers. Away from the towns, the Land Army was set up. Women joined this as “land girls” to work on farms to produce food and goods for the war effort. Some farmers resisted this, according to David Lloyd George in “War Memoirs,” women were treated with “a good deal of sluggish and bantering prejudice and opposition.” In 1916 the Board of Trade began sending agricultural organising officers around the country in an effort to persuade farmers to accept women workers. This strategy worked and by 1917 there were over 260,000 women working as farm labourers. The Land Army was particularly important after the Battle of the Somme, where so many men who used to work on the land were killed. Women working as “land girls” were issued with a uniform of brown corduroy trousers, a green jersey and leggings, a WLA hat and hobnail boots. This was the first time it was acceptable for a woman to wear trousers – a major breakthrough for women at the time. A count in 1918 showed that by the end of the war there were 12,637 women working as “land girls.”

In December 1917, the London Gazette surveyed 444,000 women. 68% of them had changed jobs since the war began in 1914. 16% had moved out of domestic service; 22% were unemployed in 1914 and now had work; 23% had moved form one factory job to another factory - such movement had been very rare for women before 1914. This would have earned respect from male readers, who would see that women had fully supported the country and worked co-operatively with the government to help the war effort. Source J is part of a speech by Herbert Asquith in 1917 in which he expresses his new support for the women in recognition of their work. It must be noted, however, that Asquith was no longer Prime Minister at this time so votes for women was not as pressing an issue as when he had been. But the source shows that opinions had changed, as does Source I, “a tremendous mood favourable to change had been created.”

The war had enabled women to go to work and prove they were just as capable of serving their country as men. They also achieved more freedom, being allowed shorter skirts and more interesting hairstyles. Source H notes a further point, in that women had brought up their sons well to fight, which was another service to the government in the time of war. This idea, whilst being supportive to the women, was still old fashioned and not what women were aiming for overall, this being independence and respect as people, not child bearers.

At the end of the war, whilst having earned more respect from politicians and other men, all women did not have the vote. The Representation of the People Act was passed to give the vote to all men over the age of 21, as many had lost it since joining the forces. The act was a chance to give women the vote at the same time, but only women over the age of 30 could vote. 364 MP’s voted for women’s suffrage and only 23 against because they had to recognise what the women had done for the war and that many of the previous arguments against women’s suffrage were not valid anymore. 6 million out of 13 million women were allowed the vote in 1918, which was a good start for the suffrage campaigners. After this was a success and many realised votes for women was not as bad as they had presumed, the Representation of the People Act of 1928 gave the vote to all women over the age of 21, on the same terms as men. It had taken the efforts of women before the war to alert the government of their wishes, and those during the war to persuade politicians and the public that they deserved the vote.