In 1918, the Representation of the people act gave women over the age of 30 who owned land, were married to a land owner or were in local government the right to vote. In the 19th century women were treated poorly in comparison to men and were expected to lead different lives. Very few women had a good education as they were not expected to need it. What little education they had was in subjects such as art, music and needlework. There were few universities that accepted women, only two from 1878. A woman could not own property and all of her possessions were her husbands. The reasons for women’s enfranchisement are complex and the fight for it started 80 years before this act. While there were many organisations campaigning for women’s suffrage, they could all be categorised as one of two groups; the suffragettes or the suffragists. The campaign was first started in 1832 with a petition to parliament, signed by up to 37000 people . However, it wasn’t until January 1867 that the first official suffragist group was formed, the Manchester National Society for Women’s suffrage (MNSWS). All of the suffragist groups later combined to for the Nation Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). Despite their efforts, Emmeline Pankhurst felt they weren’t doing enough and formed the WSPU, a suffragette group, that had the motto ‘Deeds not Words’. There are also other factors, such as the war that played an instrumental part in the passing of the Representation of the People Act. However, it wasn’t until 1928 with the Equal Franchise act that all women over the age of 21 were given the right to vote. There has been research by a number of historians about how women got the vote. Three of the largest reasons were: the work of the suffragettes, the work of the suffragists and the first world war. Martin Pugh, a lecturer and professor of modern British History and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, wrote “The March of the Women” which supports the suffragists as the main reason for winning the vote. Diane Atkinson wrote an argument for the suffragettes. She wrote “Rise up women, The remarkable lives of the suffragettes”. The third argument, which was the First World War, was presented by Arthur Marwick, the author of “Women at War 1914-1918”.
The first campaigners for women’s suffrage were the suffragists. Their methods were peaceful and lawful, consisting mostly of petitions and marches. Their advocation did result in passing of numerous acts that allowed women to do things like own property and vote in local election, meaning that they did make progress towards their goal. They led their first procession in February 1907, it went from Hyde Park to Exeter Hall and 3000 women participated. They were from suffragist societies around the country which shows the involvement and support was widespread as they were all part of the Nation Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies. It was formed in 1897 and by 1913 nearly five hundred regional suffrage societies were part of the larger group. Therefore, they had influence around the entire country. By the outbreak of the war, the were approximately 50,000 members of the NUWSS. One month after the march, the Women’s Enfranchisement bill was introduced to parliament. While this shows the cause was being considered, the bill was talked out in parliament, suggesting they weren’t doing enough. The suffragists started the campaign, so it could be said that without them, the fight wouldn’t have begun for both them and the suffragettes. However, the war may still have led to women obtaining the vote as it happened regardless of the suffragists.
The first world war 1914-18 meant that women had to fill the jobs that had been left by men going to the war. During this time, the suffragettes and suffragists took a break from campaigning and protesting to support the war effort. The war may have led to women getting the vote because of how it changed people’s perception of women’s roles. The jobs contributing to the war were often dangerous, for example working in ammunition factories, which proved that women were capable of more than men thought. Traditionally women worked in domestic service and it was believed their work was worth less. Women were still paid less than men and despite their demands for equal pay, it was not granted. Considering this, it is clear that opinions had not changed drastically. An estimated two million women took the jobs of men. While this is a large number of women, the percentage of working age women in employment rose from 23.6% in 1914 to approximately 40% in 1918. This is less than half of the population of women, which means that the war may have had less of a widespread effect on women than the work of suffragists and suffragettes. Another way the war helped women get the vote was that only 58% of the male population could vote in 1918 because of residency qualifications or other restrictions from being out of the country at war for so long. Without the problem of men not being able to vote, they may not have given women the vote. Despite this, the Representation of the People Act only gave women the partial vote; it didn’t give to all women over the age of 21 until the Equal Franchise Act 1928, 10 years after the end of the war.
The third factor that was a cause of women getting the vote were the efforts of the Suffragettes. This was the name given to the Women’s Political and Social Union (WSPU) by the Daily Mail. It was formed in October 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and they adopted the motto “deeds not words” as they felt the Suffragists weren’t doing enough at the time to help the cause and that they needed to take a more militant approach. They created a constitution stating their object as “To secure for women the Parliamentary vote as it is or may be granted to men” The suffragists were formed of multiple groups, the main being the WSPU meaning that they didn’t have the same level of unified support that the NUWSS did. Their militant approach brought the movement into the spotlight. It was first done so when Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney were arrested after displaying a banner demanding votes for women at the Manchester Free Trade Hall. This sparked a series of violent acts that resulted in 1000 women being imprisoned between this event in October 1905 and the start of the first world war. This shows the level and intensity of the support the suffragettes had. Such events created more publicity than the any previous propaganda had done. Suffragette events were more commonly seen in newspapers than that of the suffragists and to this day their efforts are what is remembered. The extreme lengths they went to by being violent, committing arson and going on hunger strike, among many other things caused fear of the threat they posed. Consequently, people were fearful that they wanted ultimate power and the Daily Mail reported that “Men will be utterly ousted”. However, this fear may have made them more likely to be given the vote because of what could happen if they didn’t. It was because of them that more people became aware of the cause which made them an important factor in women obtaining the vote, more so than the suffragists as the militant approach brought more people to the fight. Despite this, their publicity did provoke a negative reaction, leading to the formation of the Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League in 1908, which campaigned against women getting the vote and somewhat hindered progress
There was another group called the Women’s freedom league (WFL) that was formed in 1907 by Teresa Billington-Greig and Charlotte Despard. The WFL was a democratic organisation to break away from the WSPU. They only had one major event, the Grilled incident, where three members displayed a banner from the Ladies’ Gallery in the House of Commons in 1908. They also chained themselves to the grille covering the window which had to be removed. The influence and support of the WFL was moderately narrow with approximately 1000 members . Considering this, they had a limited contribution to the campaign so weren’t a large factor for the extending of the franchise.
Overall, the suffragettes played a fundamental role in publicising the campaign. Even though they also deterred people from giving them the vote because, while it could be seen that they were passionate and willing to go to any lengths to achieve the vote, they got their name of Suffragettes in an attempt to mock them as they were seen as unladylike and reckless. The suffragist way of campaigning solidly fought for the right to vote for 80 years but this progress increased significantly after the suffragettes began campaigning. The war provided a reason for the government to extend the franchise and without it, it may not have been done until much later. Alternatively, the focus that was put on the war effort detracted from the effort to campaign so could have also hindered its advancements.
Marwick argues that women’s role in the war was the main reason for the extending of the Franchise. The government faced the problem that thousands of men had lost their right to work due to residential qualifications not being met after being at war for so long. He believes that all these problems “inevitably brought the question of votes for women into full view” . Not only does he believe that it was circumstantial, he also said that “the war could have provided the concentrated experience which both gave to women. New confidence in themselves and showed up the absurdities of the many preconceptions about what they were capable of”. In his book he disagrees with Pugh by say “Martin Pugh has argued that it was a muted victory, and less that women would have got had there been no war. With this I cannot agree” . Unlike Pugh, he feels that while you cannot make a generalisation to say that the war gave the vote to women, it does contain truth. The events that occurred in the war years “generated a tremendous mood favourable to change and democratic innovations” . This means that without the war, society wouldn’t have developed in such a way that resulted in the Representation of the People Act 1918. Both Martin and Pugh agree that the suffragettes were not the main cause of women obtaining the vote as Marwick felt that “the replacement of militant suffragette activity by frantic patriotic endeavour played its part as well” . This implies that the militant approach of the WSPU had hindering the campaign. In addition to this Pugh said that “the WSPU had decisively failed and had entered a decline by 1914” .
The suffragists were the first campaigners for women suffrage and Pugh argues that they are what aided the cause most significantly. Some historian’s claim that suffragism declined, the membership figures show a significant increase in the years following the formation of the WSPU. In 1908 there were approximately 8000 members compared to 54,592 in 1914. This suggest that many people weren’t supportive of the suffragette’s methods. Consequently, the suffragists were the largest aspect of the movement which may have meant they had the most impact. He wrote that “the early emphasis on parliamentary approach was both rational and successful” . While this is supported by the passing of acts that granted women certain abilities. For example, they could have their own earnings. Despite this, there were many acts that did not get passed or were talked out in Parliament. He has considered this and admits there were weaknesses to the NUWSS but overall, they worked to improve support from parliament and consequently improve the campaign. Whereas the WSPU not only “alienated their support at Westminster but were also undermining the campaign in the country.”
Atkinson argued that the suffragists didn’t do enough for the cause and up until the formation of the WSPU, “the demand for votes for women continued to be easily brushed aside “ Contrary to Pugh’s beliefs, Atkinson argues that while events like Women’s Sunday, a march of 250,000 women through Hyde Park, was a propaganda success “politically they had not achieved their goal”. It wasn’t until they resorted back to militant methods that they felt the government would grant votes to women. She claims that the “foundation of the Women’s Social and Political Union ensured that women’s political campaigning would never be the same again” . To some extent Pugh agreed with this as organisations such as the NUWSS did gain benefits from their militant approach through publicity of their arrests and other events. Many suffragettes accepted that they could go to prison for committing offences such as assault, vandalism or even some as serious as arson, then while in prison they would go on hunger strike and endure force feeding shows the extents they were willing to go. Atkinsons says that this “forced male politicians to take their ambitions seriously” . She does agree with Marwick in that the war did help women get the vote plans were made to reward the women for their work, however she believes more strongly the “fear of a revival of suffragette militancy if women were not enfranchised was another significant calculation” .
Diane Atkinson is a lecturer and curator at the Museum of London, specialising in women’s history. She also has a Ph.D. in the politics of women’s sweated labour. This shows that she must have broad knowledge of the subject from her job and will have done extensive research for her doctorate. Therefore, her opinion will be more considerate of other factors and what was happening at the time that led to such actions. For example, the lives of women before they began campaigning. The book she wrote was titled “Rise up, Women! The remarkable lives of the suffragettes”. It was written as a biography of the movement with a specific focus on the suffragettes and that it would be biased to the suffragettes. This suggests there may have been less focus into other aspects of women’s suffrage. Namely, the war and the suffragists. However, she does mention them and details the ways that they helped the cause which shows that her degree and educated background made it a more rounded argument and not biased as it may originally seem.
Arthur Marwick was a Professor of History at Open University. His main work looked at war and social change. This relates to the main reason he believes that women received the vote because of the vote, which was the changed perception of women’s role. As he has done substantial research into social change, he would be very understanding of the factors that contribute to it. In addition to writing many books about social change, he also wrote a book on “The New Nature of History: knowledge, evidence, language”. Whereby he spoke of the methods of being a professional historian and good practices. Consequently, he would have had a good understanding and experience of interpreting sources and other information. His argument would have been well researched but his experience with looking at war may have led him to come to the conclusion that it was the main cause. He may have taken into consideration the timings of women being awarded the vote, it happened just at the end of the war. This, combined with the how most campaigning from the suffragettes and the suffragists had ceased during the war years, shows that the war did have a huge impact on the achieving of the vote.
Martin Pugh was a Professor at Newcastle University and a Research professor at Liverpool John Moores University. As a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and an advisor for the BBC History Magazine shows that he is a well-respected historian. He has written over twelve books on British, Modern and Political history, which puts him in a good position to make judgement on the fight for suffrage. As he has good contextual knowledge that would have allowed him to evaluate each factor. Both Atkinson and Pugh had Ph.D.’s in women’s history but Pugh completed his research on specifically ‘The background to the 1918 Representation of the People Act’. This puts him in an excellent position in terms of understanding the events leading up to it. This means he would have been unbiased as he looked at the whole background without looking specifically for the cause.
Overall, I believe that the Suffragettes were the main cause of women obtaining the vote because they showed the passion that women had to get the vote. One of the reasons Atkinson believed that the suffragettes were the most beneficial to the cause was because of the extent to which they brought it into the spotlight. While they were not always featured in a newspaper in a positive way, they made a widespread impact on the cause through awareness. One of the reasons for men not granting women the vote was “The keen and intense political excitement kindled by political strife would, if shared by women, deteriorate their physical powers, and would probably lead to the insanity of considerable numbers of them” . The suffragette’s actions proved this statement wrong and showed that they were stronger and more capable than men thought.
While Marwick’s argument is well supported by the timing of when women were awarded the partial vote as it happened at the end of the war when the government were tackling the issue of men losing their right to vote. However, he doesn’t take to account that the full vote wasn’t given until 10 year later in 1928. Such a time difference means that it is unlikely that the social changes that occurred during the war were the main reason for the vote. While the suffragists continued to protest and campaign for 80 years before the vote was awarded. This suggests that they didn’t do enough to help the campaign in comparison to the suffragettes, who started their ‘deeds not words’ campaign in 1903 and within 15 years, the vote was won. Additionally, the war provided the means through which the vote was awarded but without the campaigners, the government wouldn’t have been aware women wanted to be able to vote.
2018-11-23-1542966658