Why did women fail to gain the right to vote between 1900 and 1914?

Sadie O’Connor-Sage

Sadie O’Connor-Sage Coursework Question 1

Why did women fail to gain the

right to vote between 1900 and 1914?

In the 19th century, the voting system was classed as un-equal. In some parts of the world men could vote for who they wanted to govern them, whereas in other parts, only small groups of men could depending on their wealth and eminence. The status of women in England at this time was simple; they stayed at home, cleaned, cooked, cared for their children and took care of their husbands. Women were not allowed to vote or have any say in the way their country was run, or whom it was run by.

Many women resented this way of life. They too paid taxes, owned properties and land just as the men did, but they didn’t get the same treatment or the same amount of privileges as the men recieved. They believed that women who paid such taxes should have some say in how it was spent. Women who owned property wanted the same rights as a man who had property, e.g the right to vote. They also believed that they were just as capable at running parliment, or fighting for their country as males were. As a result of these strong opinions two campaign groups were formed; The Suffragists- which was founded by Mrs Millicent Garrett in 1897 and The Suffragettes-which was founded by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903. Both groups’ aim was to gain more respect and the right to vote.

Both groups failed to gain the right to vote between 1900 and 1914.There are many reasons suggested as to why this was, the first was thought to be the actions that the Women took, this was said to have severely damaged their reputation and the amount of respect they received.

The Suffragists were known for their passive and almost “peaceful” methods of campaigning. They held quiet demonstrations, to try to persuade people to change their opinions of women. They held meetings in which they planned and derived new ways of convincing people of their willingness and able ness to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

They wrote pamphlets and leaflets explaining their motives for campaigning for such a cause and their opinions on the government’s perception of them, they believed that women were not taken seriously enough and that something should be done to change this. They set up many petitions and sent them to parliment to show how many women agreed with their views, and also tried to gain support from MPs although they believed that their views and opinions were neglected from debate and omitted from conversation, during parliament gatherings. Although this seems like a great deal of effort and determination that should have got them somewhere, it did not; it was almost a waste of time. The prime minister strongly opposed the idea of women being able to vote or be independent, and most government parties thought this also. They believed that these women had no knowledge of politics, were “emotionally unstable”, and “should not be taken seriously”. Most political parties didn’t not want to break with tradition by letting these women vote, and did not want to “upset the unity of the parties” or “the natural order of things”-quotes from Prime Minister Asquith.

The second group were not as subtle as the Suffragists with their campaigning. The Suffragettes caused quite a stir in England at this time, many believe it was the Suffragettes that lost their right to vote between 1900 and 1914.The reasons for this are suggested here.

The Suffragettes were known for their more “violent” yet distinctive methods of persuasion. Their actions were regarded as Extreme and were said to make them look “insane” and “immature”. The Suffragettes didn’t believe that being passive and compromising with the Government would get them anywhere, they thought they had to prove themselves to people, they chose to cross the boundaries of how women were thought to behave and to take direct action in proving their point. They chose many ways of doing this; the most famous of these was the suicide of Emily Davidson who threw herself under one of the King’s horses at the Derby.

Although seen as an extreme plight of heroism by many of the other women it was portrayed to officials as a totally irrational stunt and yet another case of “extreme insantiy”, many newspapers condemned this behaviour and described the suffragettes as “deranged lunatics” as a result of this. Nonetheless, the Suffragettes continued their violent protests carrying out huge roits, smashing windows; vandalsing important buildings and chaining themselves to railings outside the Prime ministers home in Dowling Street. They also set fire to golf courses as it was seen as a male sport, and at one point fire bombed the prime minister’s country house. But because of what they were doing and the actions they were taking, no one was willing to help or support them.

As a result of their actions, many Suffragettes found themselves inside Holloway prison where they resorted to hunger strikes, to which the prison authorities responded with forcible feeding. Because of this mistreatment the Cat and Mouse act was introduced which allowed women on hunger strike out of prison only to be arrested again at a later date. This was officially know as the prisoner’s temporary discharge for ill health act, and was passed in 1913.

Another reason suggested as to why both groups failed to gain the right to vote, was the amount of opposition they had. For example, Many of the major political parties didn’t support women, and in debates and such like they would argue for about whether carts should carry rear lights, so that there would be no time left to discuss a bill for female suffrage. The trade unions were divided on the issue of female suffrage. Some were in favour of votes for women and helped with petitions and called strikes and so on, whilst others strongly disagreed and did not want their jobs and rights taken over by women. Religious groups, especially the Church of England kept a discreet silence over the question of women’s suffrage throughout the period, yet the Anglican Church strongly disapproved of the Suffragettes’ extreme actions. The press, before the illegal operations of the WSPU, ignored all of the women’s so called “rants and raves”, however when militant action started to be taken, the newspapers more often than not, condemmed their behaviour rather than support it. The majority of men also, were either extremely hostile towards women’s suffrage or were simply uninterested in the cause.

The most important reason for the loss in the fight to gain the vote for women was the two groups’ lack of unity in women’s suffrage.

The fact that the two groups did not work together to achieve their goals, played and enormous part in their downfall. The suffragists focused on peaceful protest, petitions and pamphlets etc. While the Suffragettes took outrageous, militant action setting fire to railway carriages and bombarding people with their violent protests. I think that if both groups had come together and helped eachother, if they had combined both types of protest and campaign they might have been taken a little more seriously and might have been listened to. What they wanted was to be payed some attention and be allowed to express their views and opinions without being told they were stupid or unworthy of being able to change something they strongly believed in. I think their will power and determination to do this tells us a lot about how much they wanted things to change, they didn’t want to be “house wives” any longer, all that they wanted was to gain more respect women were not worthless and they wanted to prove it.

I think they did this.