The ‘Soldiers Vote’

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 19^th 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 17^th 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 17^th 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.

 

 

 

 

 

The Female Munitions Industry.

A topic I have always been interested in was the work that the women of Britain did during World War One. In Britain, the role of the female members of society briefly changed. Many of the male members of society either voluntarily signed up to fight or were conscripted as the conflict began to inflict huge damage on the forces of either side. The question was, who was going to work in the factories producing the weapons of war? The answer was the women!

The Great War produced a proportional leap in the employment of women which took them from being 26% to 36%[1]. In 1915 after the passing of the Munitions of War Act, many people began to believe that the government should allow women to work in all areas of industry[2]. As the war raged on and large numbers of women began to work in the munitions factories, they gained the nickname ‘muntionettes’. In May 1918 the secretary to the Minister of Munitions publicly announced that there were 1,000,000 women working in the munitions industry[3]. Many women saw this as an opportunity to prove themselves worthy of the vote by stepping up to help the nation in its time of strife[4]. The war allowed women to show they could complete roles that society thought was beyond them, as it was believed that women’s roles in society were to be wives and mothers[5].

Unfortunately for many women, working in these factories would bring short and long-term health problems, and in some cases death. Many of the substances that these women would work with on a daily basis were harmful to their health. The chemical trinitrotoluene would turn the women’s hands yellow, and these women were given the nickname the ‘canary girls’. In fact, these women who were now yellow due to the chemicals were often refused service in some cafes as they were considered rough and ill mannered[6].

Image 1 – Female munitions workers in a factory at Chilwell Nottinghamshire, Milner Ernest, Imperial War Museum. 

Harmful chemicals were not the only danger in these factories, the TNT which was being transferred into the shells often exploded, ending in many fatalities and serious injuries in and around the area of the munitions factories. The fruits of their labor came in the large numbers of munitions being produced, a factory in Gloucestershire filed over 17 million shells in the four years of the war!

Image 2 -The Venesta Factory which was involved in the tea trade, following a detonation of 83 tonnes of TNT at a munitions factory in Silvertown East London on January 19th 1917, Imperial War Museum.

British women stepped up to the plate when they were needed and contributed heavily to the success of the British army with the large numbers of munitions supplies being produced. For their efforts women over the age of 30 who met property qualifications were awarded with the vote.

 

 

References:

[1] Angela Woollacott, On Her Their Lives Depend: Munitions Workers in the Great War, University of California Press, 1994, p. 17.

[2]  Angela K. Smith (2003) ‘The Pankhurst’s and the War: Suffrage Magazines and First World War Propaganda’, Women’s History Review, 12:1, 103-118, p. 112.

[3] Woollacott, On Her Their Lives Depend, p. 18.

[4] Smith, ‘Pankhurst’s and the War’, p. 111.

[5] Clare Wightman, More than Munitions: Women, Work and Engineering Industries 1900-1950, Routledge, 2014, p. 50.

[6] Deborah Thom, Nice Girls and Rude Girls: Women Workers in World War 1, I.B. Taurus, 2000, p. 135.

 

Bibliography:

Smith, K. Angela. (2003) ‘The Pankhurst’s and the War: Suffrage Magazines and First World War Propaganda’, Women’s History Review, 12:1, 103-118.

Thom, D. Nice Girls and Rude Girls: Women Workers in World War 1, I.B. Taurus, 2000.

Wightman, C. More than Munitions: Women, Work and Engineering Industries 1900-1950, Routledge, 2014.

Woollacott, A. On Her Their Lives Depend: Munitions Workers in the Great War, University of California Press, 1994.

 

Images Used:

Image 1 – Female munitions workers in a factory at Chilwell Nottinghamshire, created by Milner Ernest, Imperial War Museum, HU 96426.

Image 2 – The Venesta Factory which was involved in the tea trade, following a detonation of 83 tonnes of TNT at a munitions factory in Silvertown East London on January 19th 1917, Imperial War Museum, Q 15364.

The Male Suffragettes.

The Women’s Suffrage Movement was an incredibly influential campaign of both women and men which emerged at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20^th century. The majority of women in Britain were becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of political enfranchisement. A common misconception relating to the Women’s Suffrage Movement is that it was only women who campaigned, this is wrong.

Huge numbers of both men and women felt that women’s lack of political enfranchisement was an anomaly in Britain’s morals. Why was this? Large numbers of men throughout Britain shared many women’s desire to be included and given the right to vote. Thousands of men joined women in hundreds of branches and societies campaigning for women’s right to vote across all parts of Britain. Societies such as the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage, the Men’s Political Union for Women’s Enfranchisement, and the Northern Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage were all established by men who wanted to support female enfranchisement into British politics. One of the key reasons for why the Northern Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage campaigned for women’s right to vote is because they believed females skills and attributes were just as important in society to men’s[1]. In addition to the many ordinary men who supported women’s suffrage, there were large numbers of politicians from within the House of Parliament that were in favour of women’s suffrage, Labour MP James Keir Hardy is one of the most well-known politicians to be a supporter of the Women’s Suffrage Movement. Hardy regularly discussed women’s rights to vote in parliament, another politician that was in favour of women’s suffrage was George Lansbury, who gave up his seat to campaign for women’s right to vote. One example which shows politicians willingness to support the Women’s Suffrage Movement was when supporters from within the House of Parliament allowed a number of women into the House itself to protest to the other members of parliament. These campaigners then chained themselves to an area of the women’s chamber in the House of Parliament and were subsequently removed whilst still chained to the railings. Some Conservative politicians argued in favour of women’s suffrage saying that it would be wrong to deny the vote merely just because it was in female hands[2].

Figure 1 – Unknown Photographer, Frederick Pethwick – Lawrence

Many husbands and male family members were supportive of the women’s suffrage movement, in a very similar way that during the chartist movement wives and female members of the family supported increased male enfranchisement into British politics, despite the reality that it would not affect the women’s rights to vote. Some male supporters of the woman’s suffrage movement were even imprisoned for their support, men such as Frederick Pethwick – Lawrence who helped finance parts of the movement, Victor Duval, founder of the Men’s Political Union for Women’s Enfranchisement, and Hugh Franklin, were even forcibly fed while imprisoned for the cause of women’s suffrage[3]. Men’s support for women’s suffrage even extended into the First World War, The Manchester Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage said “the worst horrors of war fall upon women. Help to make this war the last, and to repair its ravages the sooner by securing for women an effective voice in human affairs through the parliamentary vote[4].

References

[1] Claire Eustance, Citizens, Scotsmen, ‘bairns’ manly politics and women’s suffrage in the Northern Men’s Federation, 180-206, 1913-20, in The Men’s Share Masculinities, Male Support and Women’s Suffrage in Britain, 1890-1920, eds Angela V. John and Claire Eustance, Routledge, 1997, p. 186.

[2] Martin Pugh, The March of the Women a Revisionist Analysis of the Campaign for Women’s Suffrage, 1866-1914, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 103.

[3] Joyce Kay, ‘No Time for Recreations till the Vote is Won’? Suffrage Activists and Leisure in Edwardian Britain, Women’s History Review Vol. 16, No. 4, September 2007, pp. 535–553, p. 548.

[4] Laura E. Nym Mayhall, The Militant Suffrage Movement Citizenship and Resistance in Britain, 1860–1930, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 118.

Bibliography 

• Kay, J. ‘No Time for Recreations till the Vote is Won’? Suffrage Activists and Leisure in Edwardian Britain. Women’s History Review, 2007, 16(4), pp.535-553.

• Mayhall, L. The Militant Suffrage Movement Citizenship and Resistance in Britain, 1860–1930. Oxford University Press, 2003.

• Pugh, M. The march of the women: a revisionist analysis of the campaign for women’s suffrage, 1866-1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

• V. John, A. and Eustance, C. ed,  The Men’s Share, Masculinities, Male Support and Women’s Suffrage in Britain, 1890-1920, 1st ed, London: Routledge, 1997.

Figures

• Figure 1 – Photograph of Frederick Pethwick – Lawrence, unknown photographer.

 

Chartism, a movement for men?

Chartism began to form in 1838, following the Reform Act of 1832. The act was put in place to correct the many problems which had infested the British political system. One of the many important things to come out of the Reform act of 1832 was the newly established distinction between the middle class and the working class who could still not vote, there was a sense of betrayal amongst the many who were left out of parliamentary representation by the 1832 Reform Act. Chartism or the Peoples Charter was a response to this piece of government reform. There was huge support for the Chartist movement from men and women, however it seems as if the Peoples Charter was drawn up primarily for men. There is an interesting discussion to be had regarding the idea that Chartism was a movement devised only for males.

Firstly, the Peoples Charter was drawn up in 1838, and the two key figures in the creation of this charter were two men named, William Lovett and Francis Plate, both men were considered as radicals and were both part of the London Working Men’s Association. This Association who were the creators of the Charter was created specifically for working class men in London, meaning that women could not be a part of this group[1]. The Charter had six points, starting with universal male suffrage, the wording of this is interesting as it quite clearly is leaving women out of the picture. Furthermore, the group which wrote up the Peoples Charter was named the London Working Men’s Association. Its clear that the originators of the Charter were not considering women in their strife to gain parliamentary enfranchisement. The leadership of the Chartism movement was also made up of men, recruited from towns all over Britain and these men had reputations for being radical[2]. Many of the pamphlets and leaflets that were created to increase awareness of the movement were aimed at men, large numbers of them referring the ‘working men’ of Britain. The language used in such pamphlets show the movements desire to encourage men to join.

However, there was much support for Chartism amongst women, there were over a hundred societies and associations for women who wanted to be part of the Chartism movement. However, it is interesting to note that many of these associations were in favour of the Peoples Charter as they were being supportive of male political demands or were insisting on their rights and their needs as family members[3]. It is likely that many women wanted women’s right to vote to be equally at the forefront with the men’s however, women’s involvement in political activity during the 19^th century did not fit the role at the time. It’s also significant to note that despite the Chartism movement only seemingly befitted men, many women helped spread the ideas of reform throughout the pre-and post chartist years[4]. Furthermore it is important to note that the demands were named the ‘Peoples’ Charter, this includes both men and women.

It is clear that the Chartist movement was to benefit men and to appeal to primarily the male working-class population, as the language of the Peoples Charter itself suggests, and the many ways that Chartists tried to spread word of this new movement further suggests.

[1] Edward Royle, Chartism, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996, p. 18.

[2] Dorothy Thompson, Chartism as a Historical Subject, in The Dignity of Chartism Essays by Dorothy Thompson, Ed by Stephen Roberts, Verso, 2015, p. 8.

[3] Dorothy Thompson, Women Chartists, in The Dignity of Chartism Essays by Dorothy Thompson, Ed by Stephen Roberts, Verso, 2015, p. 44.

[4] Helen Rodgers, From ‘Monster Meetings to Fire-side Virtues’? Radical Women and ‘the people’ in the 1840’s, Liverpool John Moore University, p. 57.

 

Bibliography

• Rodgers, Helen. From ‘Monster Meetings to Fire-side Virtues’? Radical Women and ‘the people’ in the 1840’s, Liverpool John Moore University.
• Royle, E. Chartism, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
• Thompson, D. The Dignity of Chartism Essays by Dorothy Thompson, ed Stephen Roberts, verso, 2015.

Figures

•  The People’s Charter, 1838, The Peoples History Museum, LHASC: VIN/6, Vincent/Pickles Collection.

Women’s role in the Peterloo massacre

The events that took place in Manchester on 16th August 1819, historian Robert Poole has claimed that this incident was the defining event of the age[1]. The massacre that happened in St Peters field was ironically named Peterloo after the British military victory against Napoleon in 1815. 50,000 to 60,000 people riled together to support the call for parliamentary reform and universal suffrage was the key focal point of the invited speaker’s messages. The role of women during this well-planned gathering is an interesting aspect to look at and discuss.

When discussing the Peterloo massacre it’s important to note that there are various different accounts that differ from the last. For example, when looking at the number of women who attended the gathering, some reports say that the crowd consisted of mainly men and there were no more than 100 women. However, when you consult the casualty records, there were more than 100 women listed as injured[2].  The participation of women in the meeting at St Peters Field is hugely significant as it marks the first time there was organised female activity in British politics[3]. There are clear reasons for why many women chose to gather with the men at Peterloo. These reasons being that the women wanted to stand with their husbands and brothers in support of them campaigning for the vote. Furthermore, many women chose to attend this gathering to push for women’s right to vote. The women who participated in this gathering were women of all backgrounds however the driving force is considered to be the working women, the gathering at Peterloo has been described by some as a clear showing of working class solidarity. The choice of venue further gives evidence for this as Manchester was were many factories were, therefore a high amount of working class people resided there. The Manchester female reform society was the main organisational force of the female participation in the meeting.

Most of the women who participated in this event wore all white and carried flags, many of these were of the Manchester reform society. Some of the women were put at the front of the parades showing the carrying the various flags. The violence that followed the and dispersed the crowd at St Peters Field, was seemingly increasingly more brutal for the women of the mass. The reformers present of the event stressed that a great deal of women took part in the gathering, and many of these women were terribly injured during the violence carried out by the cavalry. Accounts from people present at Peterloo suggest that the violence was worse for women and were sexually driven due to the fact that there faces and breasts were horribly slashed by the cavalry[4].

The role of women during the events of Peterloo is clearly significant in the broad spectrum of the push for the right to vote amongst women. The participation of women, allows people to see the emergence of the women’s political campaign for the vote.

[1] Robert Poole, ‘By the Law or the Sword’: Peterloo Revisited, The Historical Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006.

[2] M. L. Bush, The Women at Peterloo: The Impact of Female Reform on the Manchester Meeting of 16 August 1819, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

 

Britain, why no revolution?

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century revolutions took place right around continental Europe. The French Revolution of 1789 is commonly seen as the final catalyst for the falling of regimes around Europe. However Britain never experienced a violent political uprising similar to those seen in other states in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe. The question is why did Britain not become involved in the wave of revolutions taking place at this time a short distance away in mainland Europe. Is it because Britain was so developed in its political reforms, or was it simply luck that allowed the island nation to escape such revolutions. Linking in with this theme another aspect that will be considered is the potential revolution that could have taken place due to the repression of women’s rights during this period.

The first reason that may hold the answer for why Britain did not experience a series of uprisings is that Britain were able to accommodate change easier and smoother when compared to other European countries. Britain to this day is seen among a large number of people as a nation that stands for freedom and fairness, potentially this due to the fact that the people did not feel the need to revolt against the government. Furthermore in 1689 exactly a hundred years prior to the start of the revolutionary period the English Bill of Rights was enacted, which allowed freedom of speech and along with other things further developed the democratic power of men, which is what the revolutions throughout Europe stood for. There is an argument to be had that the enlightenment ideas that fueled the revolutions of the following centuries were present in Britain long before they were in continental Europe. Historian Jonathon Sperber puts forward his argument for why Britain had no revolution, he devises that the furthering of the public sphere was oppressed by the state in European nations such as France and Italy. This narrowed and restricted the development of ideas and freedom among the people leading to an awakening, whereas we didn’t see this repression of the people in Britain.

Furthering on from this there is a discussion to be had regarding women’s rights or the lack of them in Britain. During the eighteenth century women’s rights became central to debate in Britain as movements campaigning for women’s right to vote began to become popular. One figure who was an early campaigner for women’s rights was Mary Wollstonecraft, she moved to revolutionary France as she became enthralled in the idea’s that enlightenment thinkers such as Jean – Jacques Rousseau put forward in his writings. However its important to note that Wollstonecraft fell out of favor with the French Revolution as women were not included. As a result of these ideas beginning to form, there is reason to suggest that Britain were not as reformed as it is suggested, due to the exclusion of women. A key idea that is interesting to consider is that Britain avoided not just a revolution from the enlightenment ideologies coming out of France, but from also campaigners of women’s rights.

 

First blog post

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.