What was it like for Women in Edwardian Britain?

The end of the nineteenth century ushered in a new era, not just of social change but a new monarch, with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Edward VII (1901 – 1910) ascended the throne and the Edwardian era began. The twentieth century soon became plunged into war that marked a period of turmoil for Britain and Europe. Britain controlled a vast empire dominating globally and advancements in technology opened up new opportunities within domestic life, such as widespread use of electricity and in the speed of travel. This period of history underwent an acceleration of technological change with the conveniences of telegrams, telephones and the automobile.  The Edwardian era also experienced a fierce rise of female suffrage and the call for equality between the classes. This article explores the social changes that occurred in Britain during the Edwardian era and how the role of women shifted that contributed to a call for female suffrage.

Amy Chandler returns to the site and explains.

A 1909 poster Votes for Women. By Hilda Dallas.

After the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, her funeral was the picture of elegance, popularity and decadence that symbolized the end of the Victorian era of strict moral values and the rise of Edward VII and the golden age of decadence. Edward VII was seen as a socialite and a popular royal figure, but this image angered Queen Victoria, as she disliked the negative impact this would have on the crown. Under his short reign, Edward was able to strengthen ties with many nations in Europe as a ‘peacemaker’. (1) Edward also sought to modernize the monarchy and saw the value in the ceremonial role of the crown within society and Parliament. His deep bond with his wife Queen Alexandra was perceived as the symbol of unity and stability during a time of change. Due to the short length of his reign, the Edwardian era is seen as a golden age of development before the darkness of The Great War in 1914. For the middle and upper classes the Edwardian era experienced the steady incline in adopting an extravagant lifestyle with 25% of the population categorized as middle class.

The new woman

By the end of the nineteenth century, the role of middle-class women underwent radical changes with the emergence of the ‘New Woman’. Historically, wealthy women were often seen as second-class citizens without much independence, and their place in society remained firmly in the domestic sphere as the ‘Angel in the house’. In comparison, working class women had no choice but to work, and still look after their children.

This new image of women became a significant cultural icon coined by writer and public speaker Sarah Grand in 1894. (2) The stereotypical Victorian woman as a homemaker and child bearer was directly challenged by this radical image of an intelligent, educated, emancipated, independent and self-supporting woman. This was a movement that was not just confined to the select few of middle class, but also factory and office workers. (2) This new gender ideology played an integral role in influencing complex social change and the redefinition of gender roles within society. This was a significant factor in consolidating women’s rights and overcoming what many deemed as masculine supremacy. Other factors that propelled the success of the new woman included, developments of women entering the labor force, divorce legislation and education for women. (2) The turn of the century offered new opportunities for women that only gained in momentum for female suffrage. Statistics show that by 1901, 14% of women under the age of 45 did not marry and often became ostracized from society with their only options to continue living with family or become a companion to an older woman or widow.

The new woman was a popular figure for public ridicule by the press and satirist magazine Punch magazine that undermined the movement. One cartoon entitled, ‘The new woman’ published in 1895 by George du Maurier, depicted two women wearing androgynous clothing, smoking and lounging in two armchairs talking to a man hastily leaving the room. These actions in themselves were unladylike by Victorian standards.

The dialogue reads:

"You're not leaving us, Jack? Tea will be here directly!"

"Oh, I'm going for a cup of tea in the servants' hall. I can't get on without female society, you know!" (3)

George du Maurier’s cartoon emphasizes the growing uneasiness that some men experienced in this radical new woman and the growing confidence these women gained by challenging society’s views of what a woman should do and how to dress. Not all women left their husbands to become a new woman and many in the Edwardian era used their fine clothing to compound their femininity and status through how they dressed, acted and what events they attended. But this was just the start of new opportunities for women as technology offered another form of freedom for middle class women – employment.

The introduction of the typewriter to offices across Britain in the Edwardian era offered a new opportunity and freedom for women in the middle class through office work. An office clerk was traditionally a male profession and many documents were created by hand. However, the introduction of the typewriter and the increased demand for quick creation of documents birthed the role of the typist. Society saw typists as a suitable occupation for women as the power and roles of men were unaffected in the workplace. Typist roles appealed to middle-class women who were traditionally homebound and unemployed. This provided many women with the potential for financial independence and opened the doors for female entrepreneurs.

The number of female typists varied throughout the country, for example in Scotland, 99% of typists were women. (4) Like with any new occupation the new employees needed training, which led to the emergence of typing schools offering lessons in typing, shorthand and bookkeeping. Typists became a skilled profession that required a depth and breadth of knowledge and language skills. Society overlooked typing as a skilled profession in general as it was seen as easy for women to perform. This meant that the profession and offices became female dominated. Furthermore, the introduction of the bicycle in the 1890s offered social mobility for women as they could travel without a chaperone, which created a greater sense of independence. The Edwardian era and the end of the nineteenth century opened up discussion for equality and challenging gender norms in society. These changes in society also paved the way for women to join the workforce during the war effort and take charge of traditionally male dominated roles. The call of female suffrage after 1918 only grew in numbers and the government couldn’t deny that women played a vital role in running the country through industry, while men were conscripted to fight in the war. Gender roles were shifting whether Parliament liked it or not and change was on the horizon.

The call for equal suffrage

Britain’s class structure dominated the social, political and economic landscape throughout history and resulted in many protests, clashes of ideas and the rise of radical groups. 1848 was titled the Year of Revolution as many countries across Europe called for political and social change. Despite the complaints to Parliament for change, Britain never truly experienced an overrule of its government nor violence to the extent that Europe experienced. The campaigns for change from the perspective of the working class were often received with violence and disappointment. Social and political change was a slow process that took years to benefit those involved. The idyllic lifestyle of the middle and upper classes dominating the social and political scene did not last long as this new age of the Edwardian era ushered in the start of social unrest and power to the working class.

The desire for equality between the classes began to take shape with The Chartist Movement in 1848 where the working class demanded the vote for all men in Parliament, not just the wealthy. The Great Reform Act of 1832 proclaimed that middle class men were allowed to participate in parliamentary voting. Women were seen as even less important to the political sphere irrespective of their social standing. Similarly, wealthy men dictated the course of British politics, despite the working class’s contribution to British economy. By April 1848, the group organized a rally in South East London where they marched towards Parliament with a petition signed by two million men. (5) The Chartists included fake signatures on their petitions to gain more support, these names included Queen Victoria. This movement did not achieve their goals of votes for all men, but did gain an increased interest throughout the working class. It was not until the Second Great Reform Act of 1867 that the eligibility to vote was extended further, but still excluded working class men and all women the right to vote. The representation of the wide population was uneven and dictated by property ownership, money and gender. By 1868, only 300,000 men were registered to vote that made up only 10% of the population that was not representative of the diverse population. (5)

By 1900 the number of names registered to vote on the electoral role were approximately 58% of men over the age of 21 (6731,000). (6) Despite the increase of men on the electoral role, Parliament still created barriers under the People Act of 1867 and 1885, the Registration Act of 1885 and required voters to have residency over 12 months and occupancy of a property worth £10 a year in rent. (6) This excluded the working class and continued to uphold a barrier to democracy and Parliamentary equality. The inequality also meant that some men had the opportunity to vote in more than one constituency through owning a business premise, university qualifications or a second residence. By the outbreak of war in 1914, those who could vote and those who couldn’t were fighting side-by-side strengthening the outcry for electoral equality. The twentieth century was an era of radical and social change across Britain and the stuffy morals were a thought of the past as the world began to change. However, women were still barred from any democratic authority that consolidated their powerlessness in society, despite the long history of upper-class women using their status and money in an attempt to influence prominent figures. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft published, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), which challenged the educational system of the time and argued that education should allow equal opportunity for both sexes. In the nineteenth century, there was several groups headed by women that campaigned for female suffrage, but these lacked progress or impact. In 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women’s social and political union (WSPU) and understood that the group needed a radical approach to the movement, with disruptive tactics that challenged civil order. The Edwardian era was the beginning of change towards all women achieving the right to vote, but progress was interrupted by the war and the death of Edward VII in 1910 welcomed a new monarch that marked the start of the modern monarchy and society. Despite the wheels of change in the Edwardian era, it was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over the age of 21 achieved the same voting right as men, increasing the female eligibility to vote to 15 million in Britain. (7)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Edwardian era not only witnessed a shift in monarchy that stepped away from the long reign of Queen Victoria and the high morals associated with the Victorians, but also a change in socio-political structures that destabilized the divide between the working class and the wealthy aristocratic circles. The shift from all men achieving the electoral authority created an even greater schism between the genders that was only emphasized after women joined the war effort. Social unrest became common with many members of the working class publicly addressing their disgruntlement for their lack of equality and the poor working conditions. The turmoil in Europe consolidated the changing world that made Victorian ideals a distant memory. The new woman also helped strengthen the radical idea of female independence that departed from male authority.  Therefore, when coupled with opportunities of employment and other advancement in technology the call for female suffrage was undeniable. Middle class women joining the workforce had a greater significance than initially thought, as women had a new space to develop their skills away from the dominating male gaze and the stiflingly rigid aristocratic social circles. This created the opportunity for momentous changes to take place. These changes altered the engrained stereotypes of classes and gender that had dominated within society. Society took a different shape and built the foundations for equality for future generations.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

(1)   RMG, ‘The death of Queen Victoria’, 2024, Royal Museums Greenwich < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/death-queen-victoria#:~:text=This%20persona%20caused%20much%20upset,well%20for%20World%20War%20I >[accessed 17 January 2024].

(2)   A. Diniejko, ‘The New Woman Fiction’, 2011, Victorian Web < https://www.victorianweb.org/gender/diniejko1.html >[accessed 17 January 2024].   

(3)   G. Du Maurier, ‘The New Woman’, 1895, Punch Magazine <https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000rc87lkkUS5Y >[accessed 19 January 2024].

(4)   National Museums Scotland, ‘Women and the Typewriter’, 2024, National Museums Scotland <https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/the-typewriter/typewriter-chapters/women-and-typewriters/#:~:text=The%20role%20of%20the%20typist%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20suitable,had%20done%20well%20at%20school>[accessed 19 January 2024].

(5)   Museum of London, ‘Pocket Histories: The Political Protest in London, 1750 – 1900’, 2011, Museum of London <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/3614/5580/1573/political-protest-london.pdf >[accessed 15 January 2024].

(6)   D. Butler, ‘Electors and Elected’ in A. H Halsey and Josephine Webb, eds., Twentieth Century British Social Trends (Hampshire, Macmillan Press,2000),p.385.

(7)   UK Parliament, ‘Women get the vote’, 2024, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/ >[accessed 29 January 2024].

The Anti-Suffrage Movement in the UK

In the study of the suffrage movement, historiographical focus has remained on individuals such as Emmeline Pankhurst and Millicent Fawcett. This focus on notable individuals and the dramatic actions of the suffragettes means that one aspect of this history has been largely under-researched: the anti-suffrage movement. The anti-suffrage movement was prominent throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century and was supported by high-profile individuals including the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and Octavia Hill, the co-founder of the National Trust. Contesting women’s right to vote and gaining both opposition and support, the anti-suffrage movement is an important historical event.

Isabel King explains.

An anti-suffrage postcard. Source: LSE Library, available here.

Why did the anti-suffrage movement develop?

The fight for women’s right to vote, otherwise known as the suffrage movement, began in the 1870s, and was a popular and well-supported movement by the early 1900s. Millicent Fawcett’s National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and Emmeline Pankhurst’s Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) had both garnered great support and attracted a lot of attention to the cause. However, lack of media publicity and the slow-paced nature of the suffrage fight led the suffragettes to adopt the motto ‘deeds not words’ and they began a more militant approach to campaigning. The emergence of the anti-suffrage movement coincided with this increased militancy, as more and more people started to fight back against the idea of women voting.

Why did people oppose women’s suffrage?

Much of the negative sentiment towards women’s right to vote was focused on issues of ‘gender reversal’. In the early 20th century, there were strict gender roles – men went out to work and were responsible for financial and political decisions, while women stayed at home and took on domestic duties and childcare. Many people involved in the anti-suffrage movement were concerned that allowing women to participate in politics would result in a breakdown of these gender roles as women would spend too much time focusing on their political opinions and neglect their families. The concern over women entering the ‘masculine’ sphere of politics was intensified by the suffragettes’ ‘masculine’ militant campaigning. As well as worries surrounding the conflation of domestic and political spheres, some opponents simply thought women were not capable of making political decisions.

Anti-suffrage postcards

One of the main ways that supporters of the anti-suffrage movement spread their message was through postcards – a very popular method of dissemination in the early twentieth century. There were several features of anti-suffrage propaganda that appeared consistently. The postcards often focused on the subversion of gender roles, the physical and mental ridicule of women, the incitement of violence towards women, and fearmongering an imagined future. Postcards would warn people about how women would neglect their duties as mothers, how women were too stupid and weak to be politicians because of their maternal, feminine instincts, and would often threaten women who wanted the vote.

Did these postcards have much of an impact on the anti-suffrage movement? It’s difficult to tell, because though they were widespread and popular, so was suffrage propaganda. In fact, satirical postcards created by supporters of women’s suffrage often used anti-suffrage tactics in reverse to ridicule their opponents and gain support. Where anti-suffrage propaganda may show women who were interested in politics as embittered spinsters, postcards created by suffragettes showed women in as independent, but in ‘feminine’ contexts such as being a good wife and mother, but also involved in political activity. These tactics were used to emphasise that being feminine and a feminist were not mutually exclusive. These postcards and other anti-suffrage propaganda give us a lot of insight into the deep-rooted issues that women involved in the suffrage movement, and their supporters, faced during the struggles for women’s voting rights.

Why is the anti-suffrage movement not as well-known?

Many people won’t have even heard of the anti-suffrage movement, let alone been taught about it. Why? This is most likely because, put simply, the anti-suffrage movement (at least in the UK) just didn’t last. World War One had a large role to play in this – when the men went to war, and the women took over their jobs while they were away, women showed how capable they were of doing ‘masculine’ tasks. Following the war, the majority of women were expected to leave the roles they had filled during the war years as men returned, but socially, nobody could (successfully) deny women’s worth anymore. The war had shown that what anti-suffragists had been saying was wrong. Women had been doing men’s jobs, during a war no less, and still maintaining their family units and domestic duties. So, with women’s capabilities highlighted, and the ever-growing support for the suffrage movement across the country – from both men and women – the anti-suffrage movement began to suffer greatly. While groups such as the National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage continued to fight against the enfranchisement of women, once the Representation of the People Act 1918 had been passed – granting propertied women over the age of 30 the vote – it was clear that the anti-suffrage movement was a lost cause. A lot more change was to come for women, but the first step been taken.

Although it isn’t studied as much, or as well-known, the anti-suffrage movement was hugely significant. Looking at it allows us to see why people were concerned about women getting the vote and the obstacles that suffragists and suffragettes encountered along the way. Analysing opposition to the suffrage movement and the way in which those fighting for the vote rose above it highlights the great success of women (and their supporters) in the years leading up to 1918, without whom, millions would not be able to vote today.

What do you think of the importance of the anti-suffrage movement? Let us know below.

References

Linda Fleming, ‘Understanding the Opposition: The Anti-Suffrage Movement in Scotland’ https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/main-sections/understanding-the-opposition-the-anti-suffrage-movement-in-scotland/

Julia Bush, ‘The anti-suffrage movement’ (2018) https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/the-anti-suffrage-movement

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/kedleston-hall/features/no-votes-thank-you---lord-curzon-of-kedleston-and-the-anti-suffrage-movement

https://historyoffeminism.com/anti-suffragette-postcards-posters-cartoons/

Lauren Alex O’Hagan, ‘Contesting Women’s Right to Vote: Anti-Suffrage Postcards in Edwardian Britain’, Visual Culture in Britain, 21:3 (2020) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14714787.2020.1827971

A History of Democracy in Britain

The recent Russian aggression in the Ukraine sees an autocracy threaten a small democracy.  History is indeed repeating itself on old battlefields. Democracy it seems is something very fragile and can often be taken for granted. The recent pandemic has as a side effect created new and resurrected old conspiracies theories about the precarious and illusory state of democracy in Britain and the rest of the world. This has manifested itself in peaceful and not so peaceful ways. This article is not to challenge the veracity of these claims but traces the history of Britain’s own democratic journey.

Stephen Prout explains.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a very prominent suffragette, in 1903.

Few may realise that democracy is relatively new to Britain when considering the nation’s long existence in the world.  It took a long frustrating journey in some instances met with brutal suppression that would altogether be considered unthinkable today. Britain was not always the land of hope and glory or the green and pleasant land.

The Beginnings

The earliest recorded discussion around the subject of electoral rights although brief took place in the middle 1600s in the form of the Putney debates. These were discussions on the British constitution with officers, soldier, and civilians of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army during the English Civil War. These talks were limited in in terms of audience, and nothing was achieved.

Between 1793 and 1797, Charles Grey politician and future Prime Minister, brought this idea of reform before parliament but received two rebuffs and risible support from his political peers. The apprehension was largely due violence of the French Revolution that was fresh in the minds of the frightened ruling classes who feared a repeat in Britain. This reaction also could be seen when at the same time Thomas Paine published his work The Rights of Man which was immediately judged as revolutionary incendiary material.  The nation was in a frightened and paranoid state.

A Pro-Reformist organisation was formed called The Society for the Friends of the People. The government’s immediate response was resistance and suppression. Consequently, the progress made by the reformists was limited and so were their achievements. 

The timing of its formation was unfortunate any attempt to challenge the established order at this time was viewed as treasonous so much so that William Pitt introduced numerous laws such as the Sedition Acts, Treason Acts, and the Newspaper Publications Act that made such the existence of any reformist very difficult.  Britain was now an authoritarian and repressive state and things would get worse, but the determination of the movement continued.

The 1832 Reform Act

Over thirty years from Grey’s first attempts, the first steps to electoral reform would begin in the form of the First Reform Act in 1832 but in that time the British people would experience a very tragic and bloody event that would be known as the Peterloo massacre.

When events started to gather momentum in 1817 only 11% of the male population were entitled to vote.  The picture of the lack of fairness in the political system remains unchanged. There was a meagre amount of support in political circles, lone voices such as Henry Hunt, MP made representations but was making scant progress. 

An impatient population began a series of mass gatherings, but the most famous and significant event was at a political gathering at Peterloo, Manchester in 1819. Freedom was still very much constrained by William Pitt’s repressive laws from the late 1700s. The events of the French Revolution were still fresh and so in panic the Royal Hussars were dispatched in brutal cavlary fashion. The crowd was dispersed with the use of sabres killing a reported fifteen demonstrators.  The action was counter intuitive as the reformists were more determined than ever following the “bloodiest political event in the nineteenth century on English soil”. Despite the severity and loss of life ten years would pass before voting rights were remotely reviewed. The first reform act was presented to parliament but only after three challenging attempts.

The Reform Act (Or Representation of the People Act) 1832 was the eventual output. It would be limited in its scope, disappointing the expectations of the campaigners but would not be the end of the matter. It only marginally expanded the electorate, keeping power largely in the hands of the same status quo.  The criteria required a male eligible to vote to be living in a property or land worth an annual £10 per year, which was substantial in 1832 terms and was deliberately out of reach of the working man. As a side effect the law now formally excluded women from the vote removing the very tiny minority that already existed.

Measurement of the effect of the act is frustrated by unreliable statistics. Some statistics state that prior to the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote and then the number rose to 650,000 after its introduction. Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 percent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 percent of the population. Despite how varied the statistics maybe they all point to the same conclusion and that was the impact of the act still was not enough to satisfy the Reformist movement. More would follow but another thirty years would pass.

The 1867 Reform Act

Slow steps and a determined populace eventually led to a further reform over thirty years later in 1867. Again, it would be limited in scale as the resistance of the privileged classes remained, even though perceptions were changing. The revolutionary scare they feared would be exported from France now seemed very unlikely in Britain and the masses that demanded reform were not of that same violent fervour. 

The Chartist Movement was formed in 1838 and they made their motives and aims clear - they would use only peaceful methods and would pursue several objectives, namely complete male suffrage, salaried MPs, sensible voting demarcation lines, and secret ballots. This of course still did not sit comfortablly with the anti-reformists who felt that they had done enough in 1832. However, a new act was passed in 1867 by Disraeli’s government.

The 1867 Act would now allow the vote all male heads of households in what was called a borough constituency. To accompany this change there would be various additions such as academics and professional classes that had savings of over £50 (a significant sum of the time).  Despite all this the Act still excluded a vast number of males and all females.  The act added an additional one and a half million males to the electorate, but large numbers of the population remained marginalised and excluded.

Disraeli believed that these reforms would win him a grateful electorate and another Conservative victory in the imminent election; however his judgement would turn out wrong. By 1869 his government was defeated and the drive for further reform continued.  Another fifteen years would elapse before any further changes would be brought before parliament.

The 1884 Reform Act

This 1884 Reform Act was by far the most interesting. This saw a pro-reformist government itself challenging the House of Lords, the remaining resistance in the opposition political parties and the Monarchy itself, who even in this late progressive age were entrenched in their old-fashioned ways. 

There was a real appetite for change that suited the character of the Gladstone government. Remaining written evidence of the exchanges and sentiments of this period of the two sides show how deep the divisions still were in this progressive age of reform. 

William Gladstone was the Prime Minister in office and one of his formidable obstacles was the British Monarchy, namely Queen Victoria, who was especially vocal and resistant to any reform especially on women’s rights.

Written records about Gladstone’s reforms show how deep the antipathy and fierce disagreement was expressed in the language of the time.  “Let me express hope that you will be very cautious not to say anything which could bind you to any particular measure” was her warning to Gladstone before a Leeds Banquet on the topic of Gladstone’s seemingly radical views. Gladstone was after all challenging the very establishment himself, seeing it as outdated and obstructive to the calls of the modern age that had arrived.

A lengthy memorandum from himself to the Queen stated "The House of Lords has for a long period been the habitual and vigilant enemy of every Liberal Government... I wish (a hereditary House of Lords) to continue, for the avoidance of greater evils... Further organic change of this kind in the House of Lords may strip and lay bare, and in laying bare may weaken, the foundations even of the Throne." 

The Queen wrote numerous other letters to Gladstone complaining about left wing speeches made by Liberal MPs. Victoria saw Gladstone’s policies as unsettling, but he was undeterred. It was summed up by an article in the Spectator in 1882 by John Gorst, a Conservative, showing that even the opposition benches in Parliament were coming round to the idea of electoral reform.  The fears that the working classes would radically upset the status quo were seen as unfounded. 

“If the Tory party is to continue to exist as a power in the State, it must become a popular party. A mere coalition with the Whig aristocracy might delay but could not avert its downfall. The days are past when an exclusive class, however great its ability, wealth, and energy, can command a majority in the electorate.”

Gorst commented further on his party’s anti reformist elements.  “Unfortunately for Conservatism, its leaders belong solely to one class; they are a clique composed of members of the aristocracy, landowners, and adherents whose chief merit is subserviency. The party chiefs live in an atmosphere in which a sense of their own importance and of the importance of their class interests and privileges is exaggerated, and to which the opinions of the common people can scarcely penetrate”.  The old ways were slowly eroding. 

The London Trades Council quickly organized a mass demonstration in Hyde Park. On July 21, an estimated 30,000 people marched through the city to merge with at least that many already assembled in the park. Thorold Rogers, compared the House of Lords to "Sodom and Gomorrah" and Joseph Chamberlain told the crowd: "We will never, never, never be the only race in the civilized world subservient to the insolent pretensions of a hereditary caste".  The Third Reform act was in motion and would be passed by Parliament in 1884 with some compromise.

The act now allowed the vote to all adult male householders and lodgers who paid £10 in rent annually in rural areas and towns and increased the electorate by a further six million, the biggest impact so far. There was still far more to go as and women were still not eligible to vote and a large proportion of males. The queen constantly referred to the “mad folly of women’s rights” and was a constant barrier. Gladstone found that to push any harder would put the passing of his bill at enormous risk. Maybe that battle would be fought later.  However, that campaign would now have to wait until the next century and a devastating war.

Women’s Suffrage and the final Reform Acts

The campaign for women’s voting rights continued into the twentieth century, but the political climate could not digest any more reforms.  The disenfranchised female population quite justifiably were growing more impatient. Already by the end of the nineteenth century the vote had been extended to women in other areas of the British Empire, New Zealand and Australia. There was also a large portion of the male population that still did not have the right to vote. 

Organised campaigns for women’s rights had been in running since 1867 with the women’s suffrage committee and the National Union Women’s Suffrage Society. Their methods were to work with the new Independent Labour Party, but anti-reformers inhibited any advancement. After Gladstone’s Reformist Liberal Party failed to gain any leverage on the matter more drastic action would be adopted by some factions of the movement.

By 1903 this faction, soon to be termed suffragettes, adopted a more aggressive and violent approach that departed from the more constitutional methods that were still adopted by the majority. It was not actually until much later in 1906 the movement’s members were termed suffragettes by a journalist in the Daily Mail. This moniker was adopted by that militant faction headed by the famous Pankhurst family.

The militant actions included the disruption of high-profile political meetings, one being in attendance by Winston Churchill. There were outbreaks of property damage, bombings and in one case fatally as Emily Davidson tragically threw herself under King’s Horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby.  This in today’s currency caused £90m of damage, over 300 arson attacks and 1,300 arrests according to records.

Whilst the frustration can be understood there is a view that these tactics did more to harm the campaign. These violent actions were not supported by all females (members and non-campaigners) and were simultaneously viewed by the authorities as criminal and terrorist acts and provoked harsh retaliatory measures such as lengthy prison terms. This was made infamous by brutal treatment to the suffragettes who took to hunger strikes. The response by the government was force feeding being anxious not to create martyrs.

How long this would have been sustained or tolerated we will not know because the First World War brought a halt to these activities.  This truce, support for the war effort, and the general horrific sacrifice brought new thinking, a challenge to the existing social order after the war ended, and ultimately change. George Cove, Conservative MP and Home Secretary summed up the mood well in 1917 in support of the fourth reform Bill that would be passed in 1918.

“War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. … I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.”

In 1918 the Representation of the People Pact was passed that gave all males the vote over the age of 21 and all women over the age of thirty (over eight million women).  It was still not entirely equal in all aspects (the age disparity and as women still needed a property qualification), but it was a further positive step forward and in 1919 Nancy Astor became the first female MP. A further act was passed in 1928 to lower the age for women to that of men and in 1929 Margaret Bondfield became the first female minister.  

No further changes would come until late in the twentieth century when the voting age was lowered to 18 for both sexes in 1969.  There are circles active today that seek to reduce that to the age of 16. The debates and demands for reform continue to evolve. Will there be further change, who can tell?

It took over century of resistance, repression, the gradual enlightenment to cause the changing of attitudes to finally achieve democracy. One could argue that as we know it democracy was a concept introduced to Britain only in the twentieth century.

A Word of Warning

Democracy is a fragile and it has experienced changing fortunes. It is hard and costly to win and so quick and more costly to lose as recent history warns.  Germany and Italy in the 1930s succumbed to brutal dictatorships, but then redeemed themselves.  Greece and Turkey were until the late twentieth century military dictatorships, Spain only became democratic shortly after the fall of Franco in 1975 and in the Far East we have witnessed the tragic fortunes of Myanmar. More poignant and topical is that the Russians have reverted to an autocratic rule after a fleeting dalliance with democracy in the 1990s.  We see in 2022 that Ukrainian democracy is in a perilous state due to the Russian invasion.

Democracy requires vigilance and should not be taken for granted, even in Britain.

What do you think of democracy in Britain? Let us know below.

Now read Stephen’s article on Britain’s relationship with European dictators in the interwar years here.

Sources

Parliament Archives – HM Government

Women’s, Suffrage in The British Empire – Christopher Fletcher, Laura E Nym Mayhall, Phillipa Levine – Routledge 2012

Gladstone and Disraeli -BH Abbott – 1972 – Collins Educational

Chris Day – Peterloo Massacre – National Archives “Blog” 2018

C J Bearman – various articles referenced:

An Examination of Suffragette Violence

Confronting the Suffragette Mythology'

Nottingham Castle field trip – exhibition of the Reform Acts

How do events influence what you wear? Women and Fashion in Society 1900s-1920s

In the article, we look at the interactions between historical events and fashion about 100 years ago. 

As the world entered the 20th century, society changed very little. Edwardian society was, more or less, the same as society in the Victorian Era. Society functioned in the way older members of the aristocracy approved of because in order to work your way up the social ladder, they were the ones that had to accept you. It was a society full of rules and social hierarchy in which an upper class woman was seen largely as a decorative object. But not long into the century, things began to change drastically. These changes can be seen through rapidly changing women’s fashions of the time.

At the end of the Victorian Age, women became increasingly unsatisfied with their roles in the world. They sought out independence and a voice in the political world. Many middle and upper class women began to organize themselves and fight for suffrage. As some women were fighting for their rights in the streets, others began fighting for their rights in the workplace. More job opportunities were available to women at this time. They started to become secretaries, a role previously held by men. With typing skills, a woman could get a job in an office. This was a socially acceptable way to earn a living with better hours and pay than they could get as a maid. Because of this, many women and men started leaving their positions in service to the aristocracy for the cities and office jobs. This marked the beginning of the end of the aristocracy’s way of life.

As more women began marching, picketing, and surviving in a male dominated workplace, women’s clothing began to change. Their dresses became simpler, less fussy. Their skirts lost a lot of their fullness and rose up off the ground, becoming much more practical. Their clothes also often featured masculine details inspired by men’s suits creating a more powerful, no nonsense appearance. In fact, throughout history, women have worn masculine inspired clothing to emphasis their strength. This was the case with the broad shouldered, sturdy clothing worn as women took care of the home front in WWII and with the shoulder-padded, suit inspired clothing of women climbing the corporate ladder in the 1980s.

Contrary to all this forward thinking clothing, was the hobble skirt. A hobble skirt was a long, tight skirt with no slit which made walking difficult. Some women were literally hobbling themselves by wearing them. The fashion didn’t last long.

World War I and real change

World War I further broke down the existing social structure. People of all classes were stepping up for the war effort. Whether they got jobs or volunteered, women were more often getting out of the house. Men of all classes fought alongside each other. These men realized that the enemy didn’t care what class they belonged to; neither did the Spanish Flu, which killed an enormous number of people just as the war was ending.

During the war, changes in fashion were quite straight forward. They were a direct result of the war. Many men, and some women, wore uniforms. Many civilian clothes featured military inspired details to give a sort of patriotic support. Upper class women who volunteered for the war effort wore more practical, work appropriate clothes day to day.

As the war ended, the survivors returned home wounded - both physically and mentally. They may have realized that there were things in life more important than maintaining a strict hierarchy in society. Those social conventions soon broke down.

In the 1920s, society began to be led not by the older aristocracy, but by the lucky upper-class young people who had survived the war. Their world views, no doubt, had been completely changed. The feeling that life ought to be lived to the fullest was abundant. They felt that it was no time to hold on to the strict rules of society. It was time to have fun. And they did. These young people went out to nightclubs, danced, and did drugs. Because of these new venues to party, social classes began mixing in a way that hadn’t really happened before.

Society’s relaxation was clearly shown through popular fashion. Women’s clothing became less complicated. Again, this largely came down to practicality; many women no longer had servants helping them to take care of their homes. Women’s fashion needed to be easier to take care of and possible to get in to without the help of a maid. Clothing also became less confining with girdles and brassieres replacing corsets and skirts becoming shorter. Skirts became so scandalously short that several American states attempted to create laws to control their length. The laws didn’t work and skirts were just below the knee by the end of the decade.

The 1920s

Women’s clothing in the 1920s began to further resemble menswear. Women deemphasized their curvy figures by wearing clothes that flattened their busts and straightened their hips. Cutting their hair short was the finishing touch to this popular new androgynous look. This may have been a 1920s version of what occurred with the suffragettes in the 1910s. By the end of the 1920s, the struggles of the suffragettes finally paid off as women in the US and UK could vote. The male-inspired clothing they wore may have been a reflection of the newfound power and independence they felt.

As the century wore on, from the longer skirts in the conservative 1930s to the mod and hippie looks of the 1960s, women’s clothing continued to evolve based on their place in society and vice versa. Where we are in society always has, and always will, dictate what we wear.

How do you think World War I affected society?

By Corinne Porter

The author has an MFA in Theatre Design from The Ohio State University with a concentration in scenic and costume design. She is also the owner of porterphotorepair.com, a photo restoration service which specializes in repairing antique photographs.

For more great history articles by the likes of Corinne, join us by clicking here.

References

James Laver, Amy de la Haye & Andrew Tucker. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2002.

Bronwyn Cosgrave. The Complete History of Costume & Fashion from Ancient Egypt to
thePresent Day. New York, NY: Checkmark Books, 2000.