Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:33:19.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Aspects of Women's Suffrage During the First World War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

John D. Fair
Get access

Extract

The women's suffrage movement in Great Britain has suffered from the misconception that it was through the urgings, exertions, and sacrifices of women exclusively prior to 1918 that the vote was finally achieved. Such writers as the Pankhursts and Millicent Garrett Fawcett, who were also participants in the struggle, have set the tone of historical interpretation by describing their success in such titular terms as My Own Story,…The Story of How We Won the Vote, and Women's Victory…, a lead dutifully followed by others who have written since the passage of the Reform Bill. Almost without exception these accounts, which include Roger Fulford's Votes For Women, stress the more exciting prewar aspects of the story, thereby conveying the mistaken impression that the conferral of the suffrage was the natural consequence of feminist agitation. Those more enlightened authors who recognize the adverse effect which the militant suffragists had on their own cause and the absence of any kind of solicitation during the war have subscribed to the equally misleading explanation that it was women's participation in the war which won the vote. Such is the perspective gained from reading Monstrous Regiment by David Mitchell. A close examination of the politics of the reform question, an approach heretofore eschewed by nearly every writer of the period, reveals that the extension of the suffrage to women did not “just happen” as a result of the manifold conversions in political and public spheres, for whatever reason. Indeed the question of giving women the vote would never have arisen during the war had Parliament not been confronted with the urgency of granting the vote to soldiers and sailors on active duty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Fall 1976 , pp. 274 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Unfortunately the two most recent additions to the bibliography of women's suffrage deviate little from this pattern. Rise Up, Women! (London, 1975)Google Scholar by Andrew Rosen, though excellent, is limited to an examination of the Women's Social and Political Union before the war. The coverage provided by Morgan, David in Suffragists and Liberals (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar is more comprehensive, but by the author's own admission is focused on the suffrage campaign “as it entered its climacteric phase and failed.” (p. 1) The period during the war is treated as something of an afterthought and in a discursive and not totally reliable manner. Surely some more definitive cause can be ascertained for the suffragist victory than Morgan's conclusion that “it was political force which triumphed in the changed curcumstances of the war.” (p. 155).

2 Rover, Constance, Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain, 1866-1914 (London, 1967), pp. 180–81.Google Scholar

3 Metcalfe, Agnes E., Woman's Effort (Oxford, 1917), p. 183.Google Scholar

4 See Hammond, J. L., C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian (London, 1934), p. 114Google Scholar, and the Daily Telegraph, January 22, 1913, p. 11.Google Scholar

5 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, XLVII (January 27, 1913): 1020–21.Google Scholar

6 Asquith Papers, 7/7. Cited in Jenkins, Roy, Asquith, Portrait of a Man and an Era (New York, 1964), p. 249.Google Scholar

7 Ullswater, Viscount, A Speaker's Commentaries (London, 1925), II:137.Google Scholar

8 5 Parl. Debs., Lords XVI (May 5, 1914), 39.Google Scholar

9 Fawcett, Millicerit Garrett, Women's Victory and After (London, 1920), p. 51.Google Scholar

10 5 Parl. Debs,. Commons, LII (May 1, 1913): 1705.Google Scholar

11 Ibid,. 1519.

12 Ibid,. Lords, XIV (July 24, 1913): 1382.

13 Metcalfe, , Woman's Effort, p. 241.Google Scholar

14 Kenney, Annie, Memories of a Militant (London, 1924), p. 220.Google Scholar

15 The Times, March 11, 1914, p. 9Google Scholar. Sylvia Pankhurst, the second daughter of Emmeline, estimated that militant destruction in the first seven months of 1914 exceeded that for the entire previous year. The damage done to the Rokeby Velasquez alone was £45,000. Pankhurst, E. Sylvia, The Suffragette Movement (London, 1931), p. 544.Google Scholar

16 Pankhurst, Christabel, Unshackled: The Story of How We Won the Vote (London, 1959), p. 269.Google Scholar

17 Andrews, Irene Osgood and Hobbs, Margaret A., Economic Effects of the War Upon Women and Children in Great Britain (New York, 1918), p. 30.Google Scholar

18 The actual number on this register was 8,357,648. The Times, February 22, 1915, p. 5.Google Scholar

19 Scott to Sharp, July 28, 1915, in Sharp, Evelyn, Unfinished Adventure (London, 1933), p. 168.Google Scholar

20 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, LXXVI (December 14, 1915): 1983.Google Scholar

21 Andrews, & Hobbs, , Economic Effects of the War, p. 35.Google Scholar

22 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, LXXXI (April 4, 1916): 1032.Google Scholar

23 Fawcett, , Women's Victory & After, p. 113.Google Scholar

24 The Times, March 8, 1916, p. 7.Google Scholar

25 Fawcett, , Women's Victory & After, p. 127.Google Scholar

26 Parl. Deb., Commons, LXXXIV (July 12, 1916): 344–45Google Scholar. The “select committee” was the suggestion of Balfour in a memorandum dated June 2. “Proposed Registration Bill,” June 2, 1916, Cabinet Memoranda, Public Record Office, CAB 37/149.

27 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, LXXXIV (July 19, 1916): 1046–47.Google Scholar

28 The Times, August 8, 1916, p. 7.Google Scholar

29 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, LXXXV (August 15, 1916): 1910.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., 1949.

31 Ibid., LXXXVI (August 21, 1916), 2266.

32 Long to Asquith, August 18, 1916, Asquith Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, 17/48.

33 The Times, August 22, 1916, p. 7.Google Scholar

34 D. D. to Asquith, September 18, 1916, Asquith Papers, 17/87.

35 Ullswater, , Commentaries, 1:198.Google Scholar

36 Nation, XX (October 14, 1916): 66–67.Google Scholar

37 Diary, October 12, 1916, White, Hope C., Willoughby Hyett Dickinson, 1859-1943 (Gloucester, 1956), p. 142.Google Scholar

38 Fawcett, , Women's Victory & After, p. 117.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 132.

40 Current History Magazine, V (December, 1916):423.Google Scholar

41 Specraror, CXVII (August 5, 1916): 152.Google Scholar

42 Long, W. H., “Special Register Bill,” October 5, 1916Google Scholar, Lloyd George Papers, House of Lords Record Office, E/9/1/15.

43 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, LXXXVI (November 1, 1916): 1750–52.Google Scholar

44 Daily Telegraph, November 2, 1916, p. 9.Google Scholar

45 Diary, November 1, 1916, White, , Willoughby Hyett Dickinson, p. 142.Google Scholar

46 5 Parl. Debs., Lords, XXIII (November 7, 1916): 400–1.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., 780.

48 Ullswater, , Commentaries, II:197–98.Google Scholar

49 Salisbury, Banbury, and Craig to Lowther, December 13, 1916, Lloyd George Papers, F/46/12/1.

50 Lowther to Lloyd George, December 14, 1916, ibid., F/46/12/1.

51 George, David Lloyd, War Memoirs of David Lloyd George (London, 1933), IV: 207.Google Scholar

52 Lowther to Lloyd George, December 22, 1916, Lloyd George Papers, F/46/12/2. The best general account of the Speaker's conference was written by Dickinson, W. H. for Seager's, J. RenwickReform Act of 1918 (London, 1918), pp. 7–23Google Scholar. Also see Dickinson's, account in the Contemporary Review, CXIII (March, 1918): 241–49Google Scholar, or that by Aneurin Williams, another conference member, in the Contemporary Review, CXII (July, 1917): 14–19.Google Scholar

53 Lowther to Lloyd George, December 14, 1916, Lloyd George Papers, F/46/12/1. The inclusion of this innovation was largely the doing of the Speaker, a recent convert on the subject. Though it was destined to fail, its adoption by the conference illustrates the powerful influence of the Speaker on the decisions which were reached. Ullswater, , Commentaries, II: 205.Google Scholar

54 The Common Cause, January 5, 1917, p. 509.Google Scholar

55 Craig, however, was a suffragist. His youngist son, Dennis, wrote to me, “as regards the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform, my father was one of the few Tory MP's who was pro votes for women, hence his inclusion among the ‘Blest’ and not the ‘Blast’ by Wyndham Lewis in the 1st number of ‘Blast.’” Craig to Fair, February 14, 1969.

56 Diary, January 10, 1917, White, , Willoughby Hyett Dickinson, p. 143.Google Scholar

57 I found this amidst some press cuttings of Sir William Bull which were deposited by his son, George, in the Hammersmith Public Library, S. W. 6. The disclosure of the compromise in the Englishwoman, March 1918, pp. 184–90Google Scholar is remarkable because the proceedings of the conference, especially at this time, were regarded as absolutely confidential.

58 Letter from Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister, Conference on Electoral Reform, Parliamentary Papers, 1917–1918, XXV.Google Scholar

59 The Times, February 1, 1917, p. 8.Google Scholar

60 Ullswater, , Commentaries, II: 204.Google Scholar

61 War Cabinet Minutes, February 6, 1917, CAB 23/1/56/7.

62 Carson to Lloyd George, March 8, 1917, Lloyd George Papers, F/6/2/19.

63 Diary, February 26—March 1, 1917, C. P. Scott Papers, British Museum, Add. MSS 50903.

64 War Cabinet Minutes, March 26, 1917, CAB 23/2/105.

65 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, XCII (March 28, 1917): 465.Google Scholar

66 The Times, March 30, 1917, p. 3.Google Scholar

67 5 Parl. Debs., Commons, XCIV (June 19, 1917): 1673.Google Scholar

68 Ibid., 1718.

69 Diary, April 3, 1917, Wilson, Trevor, ed., The Political Diaries of C. P. Scott, 1911-1928 (Ithaca, 1970), p. 274Google Scholar. It is interesting to contrast Lloyd George's position on proportional representation here with that which he later assumed as head of a truncated Liberal Party trying to regain power. The Times, June 14, 1929, p. 9.Google Scholar

70 Ullswater, , Commentaries, II: 206.Google Scholar

71 Diary, October 20-21, 1917, C. P. Scott Papers, Add, MSS 50904.

72 Ullswater, , Commentaries, II: 222.Google Scholar

73 Letter from Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister, “Conference on Redistribution of Seats in Ireland,” Parliamentary Papers, 1917-18, XXV.