For many years, since its enactment, there has been a large differentiation of views and interpretations surrounding the female gain of the democratic vote in Britain in 1918. June Purvis’ study of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) could be seen as the most valid interpretation within the discussion of women’s enfranchisement. Purvis’ main interpretation argues that the WSPU were the sole reason for women receiving the vote, through their “daring and brave deeds”.However, it could also be argued that Janine Utell’s interpretation that it wasn’t the WSPU but, the war which helped women receive enfranchisement in 1918 is the more valid interpretation. She believes that “It was the attention of feminists redirected towards the war effort that proved their value as citizens” and helped them achieve the vote. On the other hand, Jo Vellacott’s interpretation can arguably be seen as the most valid when it comes to the argument of enfranchisement in 1918. Her interpretation states that it was groups like the Suffragists who “were a group of leading lights” within the suffrage campaign that helped women receive the vote.
Purvis’ interpretation on the argument surrounding the enfranchisement of women within Britain is that it was solely down to the work of the WSPU, also referred to as the Suffragettes, which caused women to be granted the vote. She interprets that “the suffragettes engaged in daring and brave deeds (…) often putting their own lives at risk” in order to help promote the suffrage campaign. Such deeds involved vandalising shops and chaining themselves to landmarks in protest, which often ended in violent clashes with the police. From her investigation, it is clear that the women of the WSPU were not giving up in their want for women’s vote both socially and democratically; as many women sacrificed huge parts of the lives such as families. This is displayed in Krista Cowman’s investigation where she finds that “There are documented cases of women whose husbands left them as a result of their activity”. Such evidence shows just how determined the women of the WSPU were to receive the vote and arguably, because of this determination, the government granted enfranchisement.
However, key historians such as Jo Vellacott believe that the extremist attitude and militancy of the WSPU hindered the success of its predecessors such as The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). Vellacott argues that relations between the movement, the public and the government were broken down as an effect of the persistent public vandalism and disruption of the suffragettes.
A key example of such a deterministic attitude is through Emily Davison, often seen as the first suffragette martyr, who lost her life jumping in front of the King's horse at the Epsom races in June 1913 in an attempt to raise worldwide awareness of the Suffrage campaign. Both Davison and her fellow campaigners used militant tactics such as bombings of significant people’s homes, for example Chancellor of Exchequer Lloyd George’s holiday home, which allowed for more attention to be brought towards the movement as it was reported and followed by huge media outlets which stimulated more discussion surrounding the movement, forcing people to listen to them. As well as this, those following the suffrage movement often took part in hunger strikes when incarcerated for their protests and militant actions. When the reporting of force-feeding was made public, sympathy was evoked amongst the public resulting in more support for the suffrage campaign. In order to prevent this, the government introduced the Cat and Mouse Act in 1913. This act set women free from their sentences if they participated in hunger strikes with the intent to re-arrest them when their health had regenerated. These “images of respectable ladies suffering such indignities (e.g. force feeding) increased support for suffrage” due to force-feeding being seen as inhumane and brutal by the public which led to many to support the enfranchisement campaign which put pressure on the government to act faster as more people would support the campaign. Arguably, the passing of the enfranchisement can be seen as a way of the government creating a stop to militancy, therefore, the interpretation that it was the WSPU which allowed women to be enfranchised.
For this reason, it is inaccurate to assume that Purvis’ interpretation is valid as it is clear that the movement did not uphold the best relationship with both the government and civil service, those who held the most influential stance when it came to discussing the idea of passing women the vote and actually passing the vote.
Although Purvis understands that the militant actions weren’t always the morally correct thing to do, she believes it “was a (necessary) response to the stubbornness of the Liberal government”. Purvis disagrees that the work of other groups such as the Suffragists, did anything to improve the position of women during their campaign for the vote despite leading historians such as Vellacott arguing that it was the peaceful and more civilised fight put forward by the Suffragists that hugely advanced their social position. Purvis believes that over more than 20 years, the work of the Suffragists had still failed to get a bill to be proposed to the House of Commons, whereas the WSPU brought immediate attention to the cause with a bill following shortly after their ‘deeds not words’ campaign, arguably, due to their militancy. The WSPU, in this sense, seem forced into undertaking militant actions, in order to get the vote and improve the progress of the campaign. As Hannah Mitchell noticed in her study, “Twenty years of peaceful propaganda had not produced such as effect” as the militancy of the WSPU did. They allowed for the cause to have more attention brought to it from widespread and popular media and therefore can be potentially rewarded with the title of being the group which allowed for women to receive the vote.
Despite the interpretation from Purvis, Bearman still believes that the WSPU was instead made up of lawless terrorists who hindered the progress of the suffrage campaign. Although the reasoning for their cause was moral, their use of illegal acts such as bombings and defiance to the government stopped the campaign from achieving a well-respected status which, people were more likely to support. For these reasons, it can be argued that it wasn’t the militancy of the Suffragettes which gained women the vote in 1918 as they weren’t regarded with respect but instead with disgust by the government and the public due to their barbaric actions. It is clear that the Suffragettes were not providing a good enough image as in 1908, “A petition circulated (…) by the National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage gathered over 300,000 names”, highlighting the opposition against the Suffragettes that the British public held and inferring that many British people also saw the Suffragettes as terrorists like Bearman argues and therefore not responsible enough to have the vote. “The wave of bombings led to a hardening in government’s position, as well as alienating those who supported the idea of a change in the law to allow women to vote”. Such actions caused for the Liberal government to become even more stubborn than they previously had on the issue. Bearman instead agrees with the other two key historians Utell and Vellacott, on their argument of other factors such as war and other movements helping women achieve enfranchisement.
However, Helena Swanwick agrees with Purvis on the idea that “the movement was social, moral and profoundly religious”. The Suffragettes were not terrorists in her point of view but freedom fighters, people who use necessary violence in order to stop oppression and gain freedom in order to grant the fundament of equality. The militant acts of the WSPU and the influence they held encouraged more women to join the movement and fight for equal power thus meaning that the Suffragettes caused for women to be enfranchised. The Suffragists were usually made up of middle-class affluent women however, the public acts of the militant WSPU allowed for more working-class women to get involved in the campaign for it “aroused a passionate discussion about women’s status and inequality”, although the Suffragettes did remain highly populated by the middle-class. The influx of working-class supporters, more likely to be involved in the militancy as they were usually the women more severely oppressed at home and in the workplace, again caused for the campaign to grow and gain attention which in Purvis’ interpretation, is seen as a decisive factor for women being enfranchised. Working-Class women lacked the education to approach government and so got involved with the more militant tactics of the movement as it was the only way they could help advance the campaign. As well as this, the major exploitation of these women made them join in being militant as a way of causing direct action and making instant changes to their position. It is clear that militancy had a major impact on all sectors of society.
Following on from this, with factors such as war threatening the government, increased popularity of militancy would cause the British parliament to have more than one fight on their hands which meant they felt that they had to grant the vote in order to prevent losing more resources at home which could be used to accelerate a victory in the war overseas as although the WSPU and other groups did call a halt to militancy, many women still continued in fear of losing progress. Yet, “Their radical shifting into the public sphere (…) forced the spectators- those in power- to acknowledge that the roles were not as stable as believed” is what Janine Utell believes. The militancy of the WSPU, in her view, jeopardised the civil nature of women and made the government not want to pass the privilege of being able to vote as they were seen as wild, uncontrollable and unfit to hold such important power. Within her interpretation, Utell describes “The increased (…) militancy, vandalism and violence, probably did more to hurt the movement” than it did to aid it. “The action of these few violent women (…) has (…) made it more difficult to approach the government with dignity than ever before”. Therefore, more responsible roles taken up within situations such as war seen through interpretations from historians such as Utell can be seen as much more valid.
For these arguments, Purvis’ interpretation cannot be seen as convincing. The WSPU, despite their improvement on the attention and awareness of the female suffrage campaign, used militancy which often compromised the improvement they had made as a lot of people viewed them in a negative light. It is clear through the government's response and the extreme measures having to be taken out, that the Suffragettes were struggling to gain the right attention and importance for the movement and arguably used such radical methods as a last hope of recognition. “As a feminist historian (Purvis) steeped in the primary sources of the WSPU” and examined the effect that militancy had in the campaign for women’s suffrage. This has the ability to cap the validity of her interpretation as primary sources are normally much more biased as they usually come from a personal one-sided perspective. To improve her methodology, Purvis could’ve used objective resources to aid her investigation. Purvis also only focuses on the WSPU in her interpretation meaning she fails to calculate the impact of other factors such as public support, war and other groups. As well as this being a feminist means Purvis is more likely to agree with the actions of the Suffragettes as they were seen as key figures within the feminist movement. It would be harder for her to criticise those who follow similar ideology and beliefs. Many modern-day feminists also wish for direct action like that of the suffragettes due to the longevity of the female struggle, therefore, making it more difficult for them to criticise the WSPU and see the bad sides of their actions meaning arguably, Purvis’ interpretation may over-exaggerate the contribution of the WSPU making her interpretation less convincing.
Janine Utell’s interpretation of women’s enfranchisement in 1918 argues that it was the outbreak of the First World War and women’s participation in it, which led to women gaining the vote in Britain; not any of the suffrage groups which rose at the time which is the interpretation put forward by both Purvis and Vellacott. “The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 (meant that) the patriotic Pankhurst’s called a halt to all militancy and urged their followers to take up war work as a way to win their enfranchisement”. Women decided to take up manual work and act as replacements for men in factories, especially munitions, as they fought on the front line. Women participating in the war effort highlighted to the British government that women were worthy of the vote and deserved it for they could do equally do what British men could do and be responsible in times of hardship. By 1918, 47% of women were contributing towards the war effort in some way. Women’s work in Britain combined with the men’s work on the front line meant that democracy in Britain wasn’t overthrown and instead remained intact, a setting which women could vote in. For this reason, it can be seen that enfranchisement was given as a reward to the women of Britain for their contribution and as a right to be fairly represented within the country after providing much-needed support and help. However “Historians such as Martin Pugh believe that the vote in favour of female suffrage was simply a continuation of the way the issue had been moving before the war had started in 1914”. The militant movement of the WSPU thus seems to have a lasting impact throughout the war which means that the war being a sole factor for female enfranchisement is much less convincing interpretation.
Suffrage campaigners saw helping in the war effort a necessity as “A Prussian victory would make women’s suffrage even more difficult” as it would cause the collapse of democracy, which gave the grounds and reasoning for most of the suffrage campaign. Without the help of British women, the government could’ve lost Britain and not have a country to rule over at all. For this reason, women needed to work hard in the war in order to continue their campaign and journey to being enfranchised. It can be seen that “the attention of feminists redirected towards the war effort (…) proved their value as citizens”. The government was impressed by their participation, the movement wanted to help instead of cause disruption like they previously had. This, therefore, shows that enfranchisement was given as a reward for such contributing behaviour. Due to this, the government started to respect the women and therefore the campaign in which they participated in. Utell presents a very convincing interpretation as there is a lack of opposition to her interpretation; many of the historians such as Purvis also believe that the war contributed positively in some way. Utell’s methodology of only focusing on war as a factor causes her to fail to acknowledge the work of other groups as well as who was affected by the following enfranchisement in relation to war. Most of the women who actually participated in the war effort which was working-class, younger women were not included in the bill that passed enfranchisement. It is also important to criticise Utell on her small period of time that she investigates. Her small-scale study of only four years dismisses any other acknowledgement of suffrage improvement around the years of the votes for women movement which ranged from around 1897 to 1928. It is clear to see that many of historians mentioned are aware that the war made an extensive improvement on the suffrage campaign which ultimately led to the enfranchisement of women in 1918 as they all make reference to the part it played within the movements and acknowledge its positive attributes. From her investigation, Utell shows that the war helped hugely in improving public view of women involved in the suffrage campaign and also helped the government’s perception of why women deserved to have a vote. This counteracts Purvis’ interpretation as it is clear that improvement had to be made towards female reputation due to the discrediting of it as a result of the WSPU. Overall, it is clear that it wasn’t the WSPU who helped women become enfranchised but, instead it was the major effort towards the war which allowed for women to be granted the vote. The work they did allowed for a better image to be created thus convincing the government of women’s capabilities and how much they deserved the vote. However, Historians such as Katharine Connelly, believe that it was not patriotism in the war that forced the government to grant votes for women in 1918, instead it was the upheaval and resistance (…) that the war provoked’ within women which influenced the government to pass the enfranchisement.
Utell can be criticised through her lack of mention of who actually gained the vote under the Representation of the People Act 1918. It was the women who worked in the war who were omitted from the vote as they were usually younger working-class women who had no ownership of land therefore, it can be contested that it was the war that allowed for women to be enfranchised as only 40% of the women in the UK were added to the electorate. For these reasons, Utell’s argument that the war helped women become enfranchised is less convincing as the women most involved in the war were left out of the bill.
On the other hand, Jo Vellacott interprets that it was the extensive and peaceful work of other suffrage groups who chose to not be militant, which granted women their enfranchisement in 1918. Vellacott described groups such as the NUWSS as “a group of leading lights” in the campaign for women’s vote. Groups such as the NUWSS improved sympathy within the government for the movement as their work was mostly politically based
Vellacott interprets that Suffragists, unlike the WSPU, focused on more than just the campaign for women’s vote but other movements such as increased welfare for women and improvement in female education which expanded the support that the enfranchisement movement gained overall. Despite these other concerns, the enfranchisement of women remained the main goal of Suffragists, with other campaigns being brought in to show future endeavours and other female areas of concern. A key example of this is shown through Suffragist group “The National Council for Adult Suffrage (NCAS) (who) was persistently engaged in education work”. Groups like this, associated with the peaceful side of the movement, highlighted to the government that women were not the wild image that the Suffragette’s depicted but instead conservative intelligent women who the government would favour more for passing the vote as with the vote they would be able to contribute in improving society as a whole.
Similar to the WSPU, the suffragists also helped after the outbreak of World War One. Instead of just taking up temporary jobs, they also “embarked on relief work” which helped the government sympathise with the campaign more as it became noticeable of what impact women could have on society. Instead of being seen as terrorists or sinister, the women were viewed as peaceful and cooperative; the reflection of what women at the time was expected to be. They challenged the government and public but remained within the confines of being socially acceptable. It is because of this that “Suffragists were thus often recognised as valuable organisers on the home front and served on government boards”. Such involvement with politics like this meant that women could showcase that they were worthy of the vote and could use it correctly. This political involvement meant that the movement, democratically, had more power and more influence on future debating and voting on the women’s issue. This again emphasises the idea that Suffragists caused women to be enfranchised and it wasn’t solely suffrage groups such as the WSPU.
Purvis highly criticises the extent of the Suffragist’s government work and how much it truly contributed to the enfranchisement of women. In her view, the work of the Suffragists lacked significance which is why the Suffragettes chose more militant tactics. Yet, Vellacott continues to explain that it is the work of groups such as the NUWSS with the government, which led to a “cross-party agreement that reform was necessary”. The Liberal government had a “pro-suffrage house of commons” which arguably came about due to the Suffragists extensive amount of speeches made to Prime Minister David Lloyd George encouraging women’s votes and also work done with other major MPs. For these reasons, it could be seen as the Suffragists major political work which led to the enfranchisement of women. However, “The Suffragists committed a series of blunders that weakened their position”. The peaceful nature surrounding their campaign took a long time to take effect and for this reason, with little change being seen, many women, often of influence, decided to back down and leave the campaign very early on. As well as this, Vellacott can be criticised on her lack of definition on how she interprets ‘militancy’. It is unclear on whether she sees militancy as a description of actions or if it is just the way she describes the organisation of the Suffragettes. This is a major fault in her methodology. Vellacott chooses to focus solely on pacifism so fails to investigate militancy and how it is defined thus decreasing the validity of her interpretation as she makes assumptions of what the WSPU did without fully investigating it. The WSPU had several small groups in different areas of the UK with leaders who helped reinforce new tasks, much like a force such as an army which is why they could be described as militant. Arguably this form of organisation, if that what Vellacott is referencing to, highlights the increased power of the WSPU and their large impact they were having due to the major scale of their organisation.
Suffragist groups, because of their emphasis on political fighting needed women who were educated which were mostly, at the time, only common within middle-class women. This led to the suffragist group being more concerned for the fight for middle-class women’s votes than the working class, which is clearly shown through the final bill of enfranchisement in 1918 where the vote was only granted to women over 30 who met minimum property qualifications. This, therefore, makes the argument more convincing that it wasn’t the WSPU as the bill was given to those more typically a part of Suffragists and not Suffragettes. Although Vellacott’s interpretation is convincing in many points, it is clear that peaceful protest did not put enough pressure on the government nor bring enough attention to the public. The Suffragists seemed to be struggling in their endeavour which is why the movement split, causing the creation of the Suffragettes who Purvis argues did more for the movement than the Suffragists ever did due to their more noticeable action and determination to bring the movement into the public eye, concluding with women receiving the vote. After World War One, this became a lot more noticeable, with women deciding to join in with the militancy with Fawcett herself, the head figure of the NUWSS, encouraging women to do so.
To conclude, although Vellacott, Purvis and Utell’s interpretations are convincing, in my view, Utell’s interpretation of war is the most convincing. It remains clear that many women participated in the war effort and it wasn’t solely just a certain group of women from the suffrage campaign. The war gave women the platform to finally show their capabilities and possibility to do exactly what the men were doing which previously had been seen as impossible due to stereotypical standards of the era, such as voting. However, it is important to note that Utell focus’ on a very small portion of the period of female suffrage movements meaning she lacks the knowledge on how other factors had already contributed to the ‘Votes for Women’ campaign. Purvis, although has a strong interpretation lacks in validity due to her own personal beliefs and sole focus on the Suffragettes without consideration of any other factor. Her methodology of focusing on the WSPU in her interpretation means that Purvis fails to investigate any other factors or be aware of their effects, therefore, making her interpretation very limited. The WSPU, although helped the campaign grow in support, also displayed a more wild and untrustworthy identity which wouldn’t be fit to receive the privilege of a democratic vote. For this reason, it would be wrong to assume that such extreme behaviour could be the only reason for women being given the vote. Similarly, the work of the suffragists, although had major political impact in comparison to other groups and work, still lacked effect over the many years in which they tried to work. Their work was unable to push the movement into the public eye and convince the government enough to pass a bill. Vellacotts methodology of a small focus of pacifism fails her to also investigate the impact of the WSPU, meaning the effects of militancy are not accounted for. Overall, it is clear that it was the small time frame and national effort at the time of the First World War of the female population of Britain which led to the enfranchisement of women in 1918 under the Representation of the People Act. Everyone was able to participate in some way and it is this participation which helped create a more powerful identity for women which arguably caused the government to rethink their stance on “Votes for Women”.