The ‘soldiers vote’, I’m sure many people will not have a clue what this was! Well by the end of this blog, I hope to have explained it to you. 1918, a year that will be remembered for the end of the First World War and the year the Representation of the Peoples Act was introduced. Most people will remember this new legislation and identify that this as the first law which allowed some women to vote. Only women over 30 who met additional property qualifications where given the vote, all men over 21 were awarded the vote, including any 19 or 20-year-old men who fought in the First World War. This act is always remembered for providing women with the vote, however it was equally significant to those men who received political enfranchisement. Much has been written regarding the votes significance for women, in comparison little has been commented on when it came to the soldiers gaining the vote.
Why is this? I think the reason for the disproportion in secondary literature in favour of the votes effect on women’s political rights is because of the years of struggle by women to Britain the vote which is very well known. What I really was intrigued by when I was researching this topic, was the idea that soldiers were expected to fight and potentially die for their country, however they were unable to vote in their country. Due to the lack of secondary literature, whilst I have been researching for this blog, it has been a struggle to find a diverse pool of secondary reading to consider! Therefore, I thought that writing a blog on the ‘soldiers vote’ would be an interesting a different perspective on post First World War British citizenship. This blog will present, discuss and examine what the ‘soldiers vote’ really was, and using primary sources, the blog will seek to explore the attitudes of people during the First World War towards the vote. I think that there is no better way to end this course by tackling such an interesting topic.
Figure 1 – Two men conscripted to the British Army for WWI undergoing a medical check-up at Marylebone Grammar School, London, Getty Images.
Before diving into the what the ‘soldiers vote’ really was, I want to make it clear which themes will be running throughout this blog. I think that the most prominent themes within this topic are, citizenship, gender, patriotism, and rights. These themes will be clear in this blog and you will be able to identify these in the following sections.
The Soldiers Vote, What Was It?
The ‘soldiers vote’ was the name given to the struggle and the eventual awarding of the vote to those men who fought in the First World War. The soldiers vote began to emerge during the First World War, as it became apparent that the soldiers fighting could not vote. Why was this the case?
The reason that most soldiers who fought in World War One could not vote is due to stringent electoral residency requirements[1]. The outcry for a ‘soldiers vote’ started in 1916 as it began to emerge from some conservative circles[2]. Before the First World War broke out, Britain considered itself as a very righteous and free country, the government felt as if Britain had virtually achieved adult manhood suffrage, despite the real fact that 40% of the male population was politically disenfranchised[3]. The biggest issue with the male vote once the war had begun, was that men lost their qualification once they moved out of their houses to go and join the British army. Furthermore, those men who did not fight, but where involved in producing munitions also lost their qualification as many had to be located nearer the factories. You can see where the issues are beginning to arise regarding the ‘soldiers vote’.
Attitudes towards the Soldiers Vote
The demand for the ‘soldiers vote’ came from a variety of people. However, as previously mentioned, it was some in the conservative party in 1916 who demanded it be discussed. Sir Edward Carson, who was an accomplished politician as the Great War approached was one of the engines for the vehicle driving towards the ‘soldiers vote’. Although Carson was a Liberal Unionist, he served in the Conservative party as Attorney General for a little while but as the war started, Carson was the leader of the opposition in parliament. Carson was absolutely in favour of the ‘soldiers vote’, Carson’s opinions were published in the national news as the discussion in the ‘soldier’s vote’ became prominent within parliament, and were well known.
Figure 2 – Edward Carson, BBC History.
Many were surprised at Carson’s desire to get the ‘soldiers vote’ as he was a leading Conservative Unionist as since they had been committed to limiting, not expanding democracy[4]. Edward Carson demanded that the electoral system should be changed so that all soldiers who lost their voting rights should have them given back, furthermore Carson asserted that the vote should be given to all soldiers and sailors who fought including those who were under the age in which legally they would vote[5].
Nicoletta Gullace puts forward a few reasons for why she thinks that Carson shied away from traditional views, one being that it was a perfect opportunity to make Henry Asquith who was the Prime minister at the time consider laws on Tory terms[6]. Carson famously cried out in a speech “If a man is old enough to fight for me, he is old enough to vote for me”[7]. I think this speech typifies the whole argument behind the demand for the ‘soldier’s vote.’ Martin Pugh makes an interesting observation surrounding the Tory support for the ‘soldiers vote’, he claims that the Great War convinced the Conservatives that the war turned workers into soldiers, and also had the power to turn soldiers into citizens, and these citizens into Tory voters[8].
On the other side of the debate for the ‘soldiers vote’, Henry Asquith who was the prime minister during the outbreak of the First World War, was initially against the implementation of the ‘soldiers vote’. Many within parliament did not want to expand the electoral representation that currently was established in Britain. Asquith was one of many who believed that discussing and implementing the soldiers vote, was like opening a can of worms if you will, as many other issues would arise from this. This can be seen in a speech from Asquith given, in it he said, “the moment you begin a general enfranchisement on these lines of State service, you are brought face to face with another formidable proposition: What are you to do with the women?”. This was one of the reasons for the lack of support in the early years for the ‘soldiers vote’. Women’s suffrage was a topic politicians wanted to avoid.
Figure 3 – Henry Herbert Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith, by George Charles Beresford, photogravure 1908, NPG x 12638, National Portrait Gallery.
It should not be forgotten that the ‘soldiers vote’ was only a vote for male members of Britain. This is a good point to discuss why some people where against the ‘soldiers vote’, there were some people within British politics that I’m sure did not want to expand the political franchise due to their own interests. Attitudes towards the ‘soldiers vote’, were similar to those held in the 19th century towards the working class, there was a lack of trust towards them holding the vote. Lots of politicians did not consider them well educated enough to have the vote.
Whilst researching for this blog, I came across various newspaper articles which clearly portray the opinions discussed above. What’s important to note is that these articles featured in newspapers across the country, showing the nationwide coverage that this issue received. On the 17th August 1916, the Birmingham Daily Post included an article laying out Edward Carson’s attitude towards the ‘soldiers vote’[9]. The article discusses Carson, and his opinions on the vote saying, that Carson wanted the soldiers vote as these men who were fighting for Britain were not “professional soldiers” but “all classes of civilians who had left their homes and their work most of them out of pure patriotism”[10]. Many supported the ‘soldiers vote’ due to the patriotic duty that these men were fulfilling.
In contrast the same newspaper issue, discussed in the article below about Henry Asquith’s opinion on the ‘soldiers vote’. The article was titled “Votes for Soldiers Not an Impossible Task”, this article discussed the comments made by the prime minster prior to the 17th August[11]. The article writes that “The Prime Minister says it is an impossible task to evolve the machinery to enable these men to vote”[12]. Asquith believed it would be impossible due to the amount of changes that would have to be made to politically enfranchise those not already represented.
Very similar articles where featured 3 months later in the Ballymena Observer, in the issue published on November 3, 1916 the ‘soldiers vote’ was followed by a subtitle claiming a “Fresh Bill Necessary” and calling it “Another Muddle”[13]. This is interesting as it provides evidence that the discussion around the ‘soldiers vote’ became prominent in the national news, and it also became a bit of a problem! This newspaper, featured a speech from Edward Carson in which he says, “Simply because the government cannot agree on the fact of whether soldiers and sailors should have the vote”. This speech from Carson clearly was intended to embarrass the government as Carson believed that soldiers should get the vote.
Figure 4 – “Every Soldier Should Read This”, December 18, 1918, Birmingham Daily Post.
Once the Representation of the Peoples Act had been finalised, arrangements for the ‘soldiers vote’ began. Throughout the national media, specifically newspapers, notices explaining how to register for the vote were printed. One in particular which I have identified is one that was featured in the Sheffield Evening Telegraph Wednesday 18 December[14]. The title the “Soldiers Vote” is clearly visible, as this article took up a quarter of the large page. I think that the fact that these adverts/notices where published in many newspapers goes to show the majority opinion towards the ‘soldier’s vote’. The fact that the article was given a large area of the page alludes to the desire for it to be seen by soldiers, to make sure that they receive the vote.
An important aspect to consider regarding the ‘soldiers vote’ is the attitude of women towards the demand for political enfranchisement to be expanded to include soldiers. Christabel Pankhurst, commented on the ‘soldiers vote’ claiming that British soldiers had “proved their claim to the vote by making it possible to keep a country in which to vote”[15]. Christabel Pankhurst was a clear supporter of the ‘soldiers vote’, her magazine, Britannia was incredibly patriotic and in one article in the magazine, she referred to pacifists as a “disease”[16]. Something that’s interesting to note is that Sylvia Pankhurst was against the war, as many other feminists were[17]. It’s clear that Christabel Pankhurst was a supporter of the war, and the soldiers and therefore was a supporter of the ‘soldier’s vote’.
Figure 5 – Christabel Pankhurst, National Women’s Social and Political Union, 1905-1914, 006047, Museum of London.
When it came to the conscientious objectors in the discussion of the ‘soldiers vote’ discussion, an interesting point was mentioned in Britannia, if conscientious objectors were allowed the vote, it would mean that “men do not vote on account of any service rendered to the state, but simply and solely because they happen to be males[18]. This links to how the ‘soldiers vote’ was undoubtedly a gendered vote, despite political enfranchisement being expanded to include more men, women where not considered, and in some cases when the topic of women’s suffrage was brought up for discussion, the topic was quickly changed….It’s an interesting point. The soldiers were provided with the vote due to their service to Britain, feminists during the First World War claimed that motherhood was a service to the state in their struggle to get the vote[19].
What does the Soldiers Vote show about British Citizenship?
When planning the structure of his blog, I thought it would be an interesting section to discuss what the ‘soldiers vote’ shows about post World War One citizenship and what it reveals about the way citizenship changed and or thought about during the build up to war and how this changed afterwards. One of the things that interests me so much with this topic. The first thing is something that really encapsulates me when discussing this topic is why it took a major world conflict to change ideas about citizenship leading to the enfranchising of the men who fought. I think the reasons for this are because of the nature and the sacrifices that hundreds of thousands of British men gave for the fight. The speech by Carson where he says if they are old to enough to fight, they are old enough to vote. I think it’s an incredibly interesting aspect that it took hundreds of thousands of people to die, for this to be discussed and even then, some people did not want to expand the political enfranchisement!
The ‘soldiers vote’ highlights the opinion of what British people felt that citizenship was. This shows the connection between being a citizen and being a soldier, I think it’s a very interesting point that you had to have been a soldier tor receive the vote. Its clear that attitudes towards citizenship in Britain had changed from before the war, as citizenship prior to the war meant being a man who met certain qualifications. Whereas after the war, citizenship meant something different, women and all males who fought it in the war where given the vote. Citizenship seemed to have changed in terms of gender post First World War. You would think that it being a ‘soldiers vote’ it would have further entrenched maleness as a key qualification of gaining the parliamentary vote[20]. However, it seemed as if the government despite some people’s opinions wanted to reward the women’s patriotism and effort towards victory.
An interesting point to discuss surrounding the new citizenship emerging from post-World War One Britain, is that it was not being a man that ensured the vote. As conscientious objectors which were also male were denied the vote due to their lack of military service. For the Tories and many members of British public, the national press, and nationalist members of other political parties, the fact that conscientious objectors could vote, whilst brave men volunteered for military service was not on[21]. The Times newspaper commented on this issue by saying, “Men who, for whatever reason, persistently decline to do their duty as citizens place themselves permanently outside the community and have no title either to its protection or to the enjoyment of civil rights”[22].
This comment clearly shows that citizenship was about protecting your country and being ready to fight for your country. Conscientious objectors, undermined the masculine nature of the franchise, which is why there was such outrage leading to them not gaining the vote. Conscientious objectors also experienced a sort of civic emasculation as they were further stripped of one of the basic features of their sex-the vote-at the very moment their wives were receiving it[23].
Figure 6 – A crowd of conscientious objectors to military service during World War I at a special prison camp. Photograph: Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS.
Nicoletta Gullace raises an interesting point, conscientious objectors represented unpatriotic men, and they became a new class of outsiders[24]. This new citizenship, alienated those who for religious, political or moral reasons did not want to fight in the war. This newly developed citizenship which came out of the Representation of the Peoples Act.
This raises an interesting point about why women did not receive the vote prior to the First World War, as they did not fight. The choice of naming the act, the ‘Representation of the Peoples Act’ is clearly wrong as there where still people who were not politically enfranchised. The title for the registration for the vote for the soldiers, was addressed to “all soldiers”. Considering this and the fact that those who refused to fight, and not all women received the vote after the war, truly shows that this was a ‘soldiers vote’ and that this was not really an effort to enfranchise more people out of rights, but due to the sacrifices that the soldiers were willing to give.
This was backed up by politician C. Kinlocke-Cooke, when in the House of Commons, he said “This bill, I think the House will admit, is practically a soldiers and sailors Bill…(It) was specifically designed to give the men who have fought in the war the privilege of voting”[25]. He then went on to comment on those who did not fight by saying “If that be so, it cannot at the same time be justifiable to give votes to men who refused to fight in the war[26]”. Truly showing that the ideas surrounding citizenship included fighting for your country, and that this was a ‘soldiers vote’.
Well there you have it, a discussion on the soldier’s vote, hopefully those who were unsure of what it was, now know exactly what it was and the impact it had on post World War One citizenship!
References:
[1] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “The Blood of our Sons” Men, Women, and the Renegotiation of British Citizenship During the Great War, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. P, 170.
[2] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “The Blood of our Sons”, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 170.
[3] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “The Blood of our Sons”, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 170.
[4] Neal R. Mcrillis, The British Conservative Party in the Age of Universal Suffrage: Popular Conservatism, 1918-1929, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998, pp.12-13.
[5] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 172.
[6] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 172.
[7] Nicoletta F. Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 172.
[8] Martin Pugh, Electoral Reform in War and Peace, 1906-1919, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, pp. 50-55.
[9] “Sir E Carson’s Attitude”, The Birmingham Daily Post, August 17, 1916.
[10] “Sir E Carson’s Attitude, The Birmingham Daily Post, August 17, 1916.
[11] “Votes for Soldiers Not an Impossible Task”, The Birmingham Daily Post, August 17, 1916.
[12] “Votes for Soldiers Not an Impossible Task”, The Birmingham Daily Post, August 17, 1916.
[13] “Soldiers Votes”, Ballymena Observer, November 3, 1916.
[14] “Every Soldier Should Read This”, Birmingham Daily Post, December 18, 1918.
[15] Britannia, October 6, 1916, p. 265.
[16] Christabel Pankhurst, No Compromise Peace, Britannia, August 3, 1917, p. 72.
[17] Angela K. Smith, The Pankhurst’s, and the War: Suffrage Magazines and First World War Propaganda, Women’s History Review, 12:1, pp. 103-118.
[18] Britannia, August 25, 1916, cover.
[19] Susan Pederson, Gender, Welfare, and Citizenship during the Great War, The American Historical Review, Vol 95, No 4, 1990, pp. 983-1006.
[20] Nicoletta Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 178.
[21] Nicoletta Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 179.
[22] Times, October 2, 1917, quoted in John Rae, Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service, 1916-1919, London: Oxford University Press, 1970, p. 219.
[23] Nicoletta Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 182
[24] Nicoletta Gullace, “Blood of our Sons”, p. 183.
[25] Hansards, Commons, November 20, 1917, col. 1139.
[26] Hansards, Commons, November 20, 1917, col. 1139.
Bibliography:
Gullace F, N. “The Blood of our Sons” Men, Women, and the Renegotiation of British Citizenship During the Great War, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Mcrillis R, N. The British Conservative Party in the Age of Universal Suffrage: Popular Conservatism, 1918-1929, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998.
Pederson, Susan. “Gender, Welfare, and Citizenship during the Great War”, The American Historical Review, Vol 95, No 4, 1990
Pugh, M. Electoral Reform in War and Peace, 1906-1919, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Rae, J. Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service, 1916-1919, London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Smith K, Angela. “The Pankhurst’s, and the War: Suffrage Magazines and First World War Propaganda”, Women’s History Review, 12:1.
Newspapers:
Ballymena Observer
Birmingham Daily Post
The Times
Primary Sources:
Hansard Debates, 1914-1918
Britannia Magazine, 1914-1918
Figures:
Featured Image – 1918 Representation of the People Act title page, Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/PU/1/1918/7&8G5c64.
Figure 1 – Two men conscripted to the British Army for WWI undergoing a medical check-up at Marylebone Grammar School, London, Getty Images.
Figure 2 – Edward Carson, BBC History.
Figure 3 – Henry Herbert Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith, by George Charles Beresford, photogravure 1908, NPG x 12638, National Portrait Gallery.
Figure 4 – “Every Soldier Should Read This”, December 18, 1918, Birmingham Daily Post.
Figure 5 – Christabel Pankhurst, National Women’s Social and Political Union, 1905-1914, 006047, Museum of London.
Figure 6 – A crowd of conscientious objectors to military service during World War I at a special prison camp. Photograph: Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS.
Britain and rights 