The campaigns for British women's suffrage were partly inspired by the fact that women in New Zealand were granted the vote in 1893. Women from New Zealand and the Isle of Man (who had also gained the vote) came to talk to British women in organisations such as The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies to advise them on ways to influence politicians. A petition with 250,000 signatures was collected, and a Bill for votes for women was passed in the House of Commons, and although it went no further, the Conservative Leader of the House stated that the next parliamentary reform should include women's suffrage. Women were inspired by the fact that new occupations were now available to them - e.g. dentistry and law. They felt that if they could hold responsible positions in society, they should be permitted to vote.
Miranda Fisher-Levine
Question 2 - "Describe the Ways in Which the Methods of the Suffragists and Suffragettes Were Different"
Both Suffragists and Suffragettes wanted women's voting rights to be equal to men's, but their ideas on the best way to achieve their end differed and this was why they split into two groups.
Millicent Fawcett, 1897 leader of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), favoured peaceful, constitutional methods. A group of members who thought this would not be effective split off (on 10th October 1903) to form the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) who favoured violent protest. Sylvia and Emmeline Pankhurst, daughter and widow of Dr. Richard Pankhurst (a noted campaigner for women's suffrage) headed the WSPU.
The NUWSS wanted to persuade people, rather then force them into giving them their way, which seemed to be the method of the Suffragettes. The NUWSS spoke in public and handed out leaflets door-to-door. The Suffragettes also spoke in public, but their slogan "Deeds Not Words" showed that they preferred to act rather then speak. Even their speeches were forceful; in October 1906, ten women were arrested for storming the House of Commons and attempting to make protest speeches. They would protest publicly and were violent towards the policemen who tried to arrest them, spitting and shouting at them. They would physically attack their dissenters - for example, a doctor who did not oppose force feeding (see below) was beaten with a rhino whip. The Suffragettes chained themselves to railings outside No. 10 Downing Street as a publicity stunt, and it worked - the press caught wind of them and through this they attracted both public support and opposition. If Suffragettes were arrested, they were usually offered either a spell in prison or a fine, and their refusal to pay fines became a Suffragette trademark. Suffragette prisoners often went on hunger strike, refusing to eat until they were released. Force-feeding was used by hospital doctors, and the Suffragettes used this to their full advantage, publicising the horrors inflicted on them in prison. Suffragettes gained more publicity by "The Cat and Mouse Act" - they were being released from prison on grounds of poor health and were then re-arrested. In 1912, Suffragettes smashed shop windows in London (over 200 were arrested) and arson attempts were made on public buildings. This caused a break up of the WSPU, leaving Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst in charge. Their militancy escalated - firebombs were thrown, golf courses vandalised and rail stations burnt down. The zenith of their violence was at the 1916 Derby when Emily Wilding Davison famously threw herself in front of the King's horse. She died, and thousands went to her funeral. More public places were attacked - schools, churches, art galleries, hotels and many others.
By contrast, the Suffragists were a peaceful group who preferred to convey their message by canvassing, distributing literature and holding public meetings. MPs were gently pressured by campaigns and many petitions were collected. One of the NUWSS's bolder moves was to have a candidate (male) stand against a local Liberal. This brought the Suffragists to the direct attention of the voting public. "The Mud March", so called because of the bad weather, was a peaceful march through London, which, being the first march of its kind, drew positive public attention.
The Suffragists eventually broke all ties with the WSPU because they believed that their violent methods would only reinforce the public opinion that women were hysterical and unstable, and therefore unable to cope with the responsibility of voting. MPs also did not want to appear to submit to terrorism, and were actually more likely to prevent women's suffrage than to accept it if the Suffragettes continued to use militant methods. The question of whether the Suffragists would have won the vote without the aggressive campaigns of the Suffragettes is hotly debated.
Miranda Fisher-Levine
Question 3
This question asks whether I believe women over 30 were granted the vote in 1918 mainly because of their help in the war. "Mainly" is a key word - in most, perhaps all situations, there are multiple contributing factors that result in a change. Although it is virtually impossible to isolate one main factor, if one must be chosen, women's contribution to the war would be it, if only because of how their actions changed the opinions of the general public and MPs.
In 1915, when men were conscripted, women were needed to fill men's jobs. Their working in munitions, nursing, driving and other jobs proved their worth as citizens and their capability, helping to dispel the common stereotype of the "hysterical woman". This was helped when in 1914, Emmeline Pankhurst called a cease to violent protest - women seemed to be "sobering up" and working to help the country. Public opinion of women improved, especially as they often took jobs providing a public service, as bus conductors, postal workers and farmers in the Land Army. Women also encouraged men to join the army, and supported the "white feather" campaign of public humiliation for non-joiners. MPs saw that women were vital to keep the country afloat whilst men were abroad, and that they were capable of holding positions of responsibility.
The evidence that war work was less crucial to the introduction of women's suffrage is in The Representation of the People Act (1918). Its primary objective was to give suffrage to non- house-holding soldiers over 21 who had fought in the war yet did not have the right to vote; the clause giving women this right was more of an afterthought. One main reason women were given the vote was that MPs were scared of Suffragettes re-grouping and continuing their militant campaign. They were also increasingly unable to justify withholding women's suffrage. Public opinion of women dropped hugely after the end of the war - the slogan "Heroines to Scroungers" sums up the thought that now that men were back home, women were once again a drain on resources, and not useful members of the working population. Three years is a long time in social terms; between 1915 and the 1918 Act, it is probable that women's invaluable help in the war had been mostly forgotten.
The majority of women who worked in the war (suffering hugely in heavy industries like coal mining and munitions) were single and under 30, and thus were not themselves rewarded by post-war suffrage. Those respectable, married women who were granted suffrage had not contributed to the war effort. Possibly the opinion of Parliament was swayed by the work of single, lower-class women proved to MPs the worth and capability of the whole sex. Nevertheless, women were still seen as inferior, and the preservation of the household franchise ensured that female voters did not outnumber males - the government was careful to keep women secondary contributors.
To conclude, I agree that if a main factor must be chosen, I would choose war work because of its pivotal effect on the opinions of both Parliament and the general public.
