CHAPTER VIII
THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT
It would be as well to forestall criticism and say with great clearness that feminism and woman suffrage are not the same thing, though both, admittedly, are the offspring of the same idea. Feminism seeks to remove all barriers which oppose the perfect freedom of women as human beings, conventional, social, political, and economic. Woman suffrage would break down one of these barriers only—the political barrier. The difference between woman suffrage and feminism is one of degree rather than kind, but there are differences of degree that constitute almost a difference in kind, and this is a case in point. The supporters of the woman suffrage movement would very much like to see man's monopoly of the voting broken down, but would, in the main, shrink from still further enlarging feminine opportunities. On the other hand, the true feminist regards woman suffrage as a step, and only a very short step, in the direction of woman's freedom.
Nor is it true to say, as is frequently said, that the woman suffrage movement is identical with the Socialist movement, and that woman suffragists are invariably Socialists. Many woman suffragists are Socialists, but it is also true that many Socialists are antisuffragists. Mr Belfort Bax is one of the foremost Socialists of his time, but he is a bitter and uncompromising opponent of feminism in all its branches. Woman suffrage might be established by law next week, but the system of society known as Socialism would still be far away. Many Socialists believe that the establishment of woman suffrage would actually put back the cause of Socialism for generations, and for that reason give only a reluctant support to the woman suffrage movement. Socialism stands for the public ownership of public necessaries and the organisation of these for the uses of the people. Socialists are to be found everywhere, though, no doubt, in fewer numbers than in other political movements, who, when it comes to be a question of State privileges and not State duties, are as diffident about including women in the term people as any capitalist opponent of woman suffrage might be.
The reason for the common confusion of thought in relation to the movements—Socialism and Woman Suffrage—is to be found in the fact that Socialism, as a democratic movement, is bound in the very nature of things to support the demand of women for their enfranchisement. But it is not recognised that the women of the suffrage movement are not bound to accept the teaching and the political principles of the Socialist or any other political party. The woman suffrage movement stands solely for woman suffrage, and supports or opposes a party according as it thinks its action will gain or lose support for its own object.
The woman suffrage movement is undoubtedly one of the great movements for human freedom of which the French Revolution was the progenitor. Men and women have not yet come to a real understanding of the value to humanity at large of the gift which it received from the French Revolution. The horrors and excesses with which the Revolution was accompanied, and by which it was disgraced, have obscured for the average man and woman the real and inward significance of the great cataclysm. The comparative freedom that the people of this land enjoy to-day is in no small measure due to the new thought and the new idealism which came to birth during the sorrowful days of that stormy period. Mary Wollstonecraft was the messenger of the new thought to this country, in so far as its application to women was concerned; and with the appearance of her Vindication of the Rights of Women began the sowing which has brought forth so bountiful a harvest for the womanhood of Great Britain.
The modern woman suffrage movement in this country apparently dates back to the year 1867, but its real beginnings were in 1819. In that year occurred the great event of the campaign for the extension of the franchise, conducted by the Radicals. A meeting was held in St Peter's Fields in Manchester to demand adult suffrage. A large and orderly crowd collected from every part of the county to hear the great leader of the people, Orator Hunt. Those responsible for law and order, fearing a riot, had sent down the Lancashire and Cheshire Yeomanry with orders to stop the meeting and arrest the speaker. The soldiers lost their heads, and charged the unresisting people, with the unhappy result that many men and women were seriously wounded by the soldiers' bayonets, or trampled upon by the feet of the crowd. Six or seven people were actually killed. In the Manchester Reform Club is to be seen to-day a picture of the scene of the massacre, which is dedicated to 'Henry Hunt, Esq., and the Female Reformers of Manchester and the adjacent towns.' The picture shows women exposed to every risk, and suffering the same horrors as their male colleagues.
In response to this wild and strenuous agitation for electoral reform, the Reform Act of 1832 was passed. By the wording of that Act statutory disability was first placed upon women through the insertion of the words 'male person.' Before 1832 women were not prevented by any definite statement of an Act of Parliament from taking part in an election, if properly qualified. There is considerable doubt as to whether any woman did actually vote as a matter of right before this period. In the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century the number of male electors was very small, and the difficulties of an election, carried out openly and without the protection the Ballot Act has since afforded, was enough to disconcert all but the very boldest, and make them timid about using their privilege as electors.
In the year 1850 an Act of Parliament known as Lord Brougham's Act was passed, which provided that in all Acts of Parliament 'words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed to include the feminine unless the contrary is expressly provided.' When a further extension of the franchise took place in 1867, the word 'man' was employed in the Act, instead of the words 'male person' used in the wording of the Act of 1832. This gave heart to the woman suffragists, who interpreted the new Reform Act in the light of Lord Brougham's liberal measure. Thousands of women all over the country, but notably in Manchester and Salford, where they were organised and led by that stalwart suffragist, Miss Lydia Becker, sought to have their names registered as Parliamentary electors. Most of the Revising Barristers to whom they made application refused to put their names upon the register. Others interpreted the new legislation as did the women themselves. In order to settle the question a legal decision was sought, and four selected cases were tried before the Court of Common Pleas. Judgment was given against the women. Lord Chief Justice Bovill and his colleagues deciding that, although for all ordinary purposes the word 'man,' when employed in an Act of Parliament, must be held to include women, this did not apply when State privileges were in question. By this ruling it became established that a woman must pay taxes when these are imposed by the State, and suffer the penalty of the law when she breaks the laws made by Parliament, but that she may not vote for the men who assess those taxes and make those laws.
This famous decision, known as the Chorlton v. Lings decision, had the effect of stimulating the woman suffragists of the country in a very remarkable degree, as it revealed the strength of masculine prejudice, and showed quite clearly that the fight for the vote would be a long, uphill struggle.
The passing of the Divorce Act of 1857 also contributed to the strength of the demand for the political emancipation of women, for by that Act the double standard of morality was established by law, making it impossible for a woman to divorce her husband for the grossest infidelities unaccompanied with cruelty or desertion, whilst it permitted relief for a husband for one offence of this sort by his wife.
The great nineteenth century champion of the rights of women was John Stuart Mill, whose book, The Subjection of Women, has been of the greatest value in creating an enlightened public opinion on the whole woman question. John Stuart Mill was first sent to Parliament as a known woman suffragist, for he made no secret of his views on the subject when asked by a delegation to contest the seat for the city of Westminster in the Radical interests in 1865. He was elected, and became the champion of the woman suffrage cause on the floor of the House of Commons. He moved an amendment to the Reform Bill of 1867, and by his eloquence commanded the attention of the House from the beginning to the end of his speech. The amendment was lost by 73 to 186, but the result was far better than the supporters of the cause outside imagined it would be. For the first and last time in his life, John Bright voted for woman suffrage, moved thereto by the sincerity and earnestness as well as the eloquence of Mill. His well-known objection to woman suffrage was his fear that the power to vote would carry the power to sit, and he disliked the thought of the woman Member of Parliament. Mill also presented to the House the first woman suffrage petition, which contained 1499 names, some of them the names of the most distinguished women of the times, Florence Nightingale, Harriet Martineau, Mary Somerville, and Mrs Josephine Butler.
Though the women were defeated in the Commons in 1867, and in the Law Courts in 1868, the discussion which arose out of these two events resulted in the creation of a more enlightened public opinion upon the question of the status of women. Many doors were opened to them, not without much effort on their part, which were previously closed. In 1869 the Municipal Franchise was restored to women, and in 1870, by the passing of the Education Act of that year, they were made eligible for membership of School Boards, to which several brilliant women were at once elected. The first Married Woman's Property Act, which gave a married woman the right to her own earnings, was passed in the same year, 1870. In 1867 and 1871 University education was made possible for women, and in 1876 the medical profession was, by Act of Parliament, thrown open to them.
There is little doubt in the minds of those familiar with the history of events in the women's movement of the last century that these great measures of justice were largely the outcome of the woman suffrage propaganda. They were in the nature of sops, thrown to the women to induce them to forgo the larger privileges. It was hoped by a partial recognition of grievances and a partial removal of disabilities to make the demand for the Parliamentary vote less justifiable than it otherwise would appear in the eyes of the public. This behaviour on the part of politicians might, and does, effectively deceive the average citizen, who, seeing Parliament interesting itself in women's questions, feels his sense of justice satisfied. But not so those who have worked in the political women's movement. They have never felt tempted to give up their demand for full citizenship; partly because they know how hard it is for an unrepresented class to wring beneficial legislation from those not answerable to it; partly because they know that the privileges and rights they have won are not secure without the power which the vote carries to protect them; but most of all, because they look upon the vote as a symbol of deep spiritual things and the hall-mark of their individuality.
Between 1867 and 1884 the suffragists had conducted a strenuous campaign all over the country, for they foresaw that the country would not remain content with the enfranchisement of the working-men in the boroughs. An agitation for the widening of the County Franchise led up to the election of 1880, and the new Liberal Government was returned pledged to deal with the electoral laws at the earliest opportunity. A new hope came into the hearts of the women, and they worked untiringly to secure their enfranchisement in the new Parliament. About this time was formed the first women's organisation of a political party character. The Primrose League was established on the initiative of certain well-known Conservative politicians, including Lord Randolph Churchill, with the object of training women to serve the interests of Conservative political candidates during the elections. The women were taught to canvass, bring in voters, look up removals, sit in committee-rooms and give advice, make speeches, and do any number of hard, political duties for those men with whose ideas they sympathised. Similarly, the Women's Liberal Federation was formed in 1886, with the object of doing for their side in politics what the Primrose League had done so admirably for the Conservatives. It is laughable to note that the necessity for bringing in women to assist arose from the fact that sufficient men could not be found to do the necessary work after the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1888, which made the payment of canvassers illegal. The women have since done this hard and thankless work for the men without reward of any kind, and it is fully admitted by pollticians of all sorts that the political party which cannot command the work of intelligent women is in a most unfortunate and disadvantageous position. The admission of women to this kind of work has considerably weakened, if it has not utterly destroyed, the favourite argument of politicians against the proposal to enfranchise women, that women ought not to be allowed to engage in the dirty and disagreeable work of politics. It would be too stupidly illogical to accept the work of women and then, on the ground that the work was unsuitable for them, deny them the opportunity of doing what they were instructed to persuade men to do.
Not all Liberal women are in favour of woman suffrage. For many years after the formation of the Federation, woman suffrage was rejected by the Annual Meeting when it was brought up for discussion. Perhaps this was very largely due to the influence of its first president, Mrs Gladstone, who was an anti-suffragist. It was certainly due to the influence of the wives of politicians who saw in the Liberal Federation only an organisation for helping Liberal men. Many enlightened Liberal women members held the view that, if they were good enough to work for Liberal men they were good enough to vote as Liberal women for Liberal measures, and proceeded to educate their organisation on these lines; with the result that in 1883 there was a split in the Women's Liberal Federation, the National Women's Liberal Association being formed. This body differs from its parent in that it declines to make woman suffrage a test question for Liberal candidates, but supports all candidates satisfactory to the Party Caucus. The present President of the Women's Liberal Federation is Rosalind, Countess of Carlisle, a strong and stalwart supporter of woman suffrage.
Since the year 1869, fourteen Bills and a number of resolutions in favour of woman suffrage have been before the House of Commons, and seven have passed their second reading. Since 1886 there has been a majority in the House of Commons pledged to woman suffrage. This satisfactory state of things is due in a large measure to the hard and patient work of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies. This Society was formed by the amalgamation in 1868 of five suffrage societies in the cities of Manchester, London, Edinburgh, Bristol, and Birmingham respectively. At the present time (1913) the National Union comprises 402 affiliated organisations, and new ones are springing up every week. This is the oldest and largest of the many woman suffrage societies in existence, though other societies have made themselves more widely known by the use of unusual methods. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies has proceeded along educational lines, and by means of peaceful propaganda has sought to win public opinion to its side, believing that in public opinion lies the most effective weapon.
In size and importance, the only rival to the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies is the Women's Social and Political Union, founded in 1908, by Mrs Pankhurst. This organisation has become notorious for the use of violence in the prosecution of its campaign; but it did not begin its existence in this way. When first the 'militant' suffrage movement came into being it was the proud boast of its leader and founder that its members cheerfully offered themselves to the violence of others, but committed no violence upon other people. They made martyrs from amongst themselves, but declined to make victims of other people. When in 1906 they and others, who formed a large and important delegation to the then Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, were told that no pledge could be made on behalf of the Liberal Government that a measure for woman suffrage would be introduced by it during its lifetime, the members of the Social and Political Union determined on open warfare against the Government. They were fortified in their decision by the Prime Minister, himself a sympathiser with the aims of the women, who recommended them to 'pester' those responsible for the opposition to this question. The first acts of militancy took the form of questioning Cabinet Ministers at their public meetings. Sometimes these questions were courteously answered, but generally they were tossed aside by the chairman with laughter, or with words calculated to wound or enrage the questioner. Frequently the women who questioned were roughly put out of the meetings. Then when they found they could get no serious answers to their questions the women turned to heckling the Ministers, and interjected, after the fashion of men, more or less relevant observations. For this they were brutally handled by enraged stewards, and suffered every indignity at their hands. Some were charged, sentenced, and imprisoned for creating disturbances for which they were really not responsible.
The new Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, declined to receive a deputation from this body of women, whereupon began the series of deputations to the House, witnessed by tens of thousands of people, in which the women came into conflict with the police, and by them and the mob suffered the rudest violence. Hundreds have been imprisoned for refusing to obey the police. Attempts to treat them as common criminals have been steadily resisted from the first, and to gain the first-class treatment, granted to certain male political prisoners, the women adopted the hunger-strike, which a baffled Government met with the filthy practice of forcible-feeding.
The reversal of the early policy of the Union, and the substitution of a policy of attack upon property, both Government property and that of private citizens, was made in 1911, when Mr Asquith's proposal to enfranchise more men whilst ignoring the long-standing claims of the women was made. It was felt by thousands of women that no more might reliance be placed upon the fairmindedness and the honour of politicians, ever ready to promise, but willing always to break the spirit, if not the letter, of their promises to women. The Prime Minister engaged to accept a woman suffrage amendment to the promised Reform Bill, if carried by the Commons, and to make it an integral part of the Bill, having all the Government machinery at its command; but the Women's Social and Political Union was not able to believe that there was any value in such an offer, and their policy of relentless opposition to the members of the Government continued, accompanied by ever-increasing acts of law-breaking and disorder.
The argument which the militant suffragists use in defence of their behaviour is that nearly fifty years of lawful methods have produced no result; that Governments are amenable only to pressure; that men have always adopted methods of violence and destruction before each Reform Bill was enacted; that the public, through its indifference, ought to be roused by attacks on its property, which is the thing it cherishes the most; that for whatever is done by the militants, the Government is responsible, and that the end, in this case, justifies the means.
The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies has repeatedly dissociated itself from this method of propaganda. It does not approve of the use of violence. It believes the injury of innocent people is wrong and indefensible, and that it can do no good to the cause. In reply to the argument of the militants, it says that fifty years of lawful agitation have produced very great results in those improvements in the status of women recounted on previous pages; that the pressure to which Governments are amenable need not be the pressure of physical violence, but may be supplied by the pressure which the defeat of their candidates at by-elections constitutes, and by the withdrawal of active help and money support from the Government's party.
The argument that because men have used violence in the past for the accomplishment of their purpose women should use it in the present is not a good one. Those methods were used by unlettered men, hungry men with starving wives and families, in hot moments of terrible indignation, and what was pardonable in these circumstances is not pardonable in educated women with every facility for education and with the enormous weapon of passive resistance at their command with which to bring men and Governments to reason. The indifference of the general public is unquestioned, but this is an argument for further propaganda and not for stone-throwing. Quite half the public is composed of women, and these women must be converted. The Government cannot be held responsible for the acts of sane people, endowed with free-will, and no end is justified which involves the sacrifice of innocent people against their wills by arbitrary, self-elected judges.
The two large suffrage organisations make the same demand, as does every suffrage society in existence, including the Men's League for Women's Suffrage, the Church of England Suffrage Society, the Free Church Suffrage League, the Catholic Suffrage Society, the Women's Freedom League, the Women Writers' Suffrage League, the Actresses' Suffrage Society, and the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association. This demand is, and has consistently been, votes for women on the same terms as men. They say in effect to the present voters: 'Make your qualifications for the franchise precisely what you choose, but we ask for equality of treatment. If Manhood Suffrage should become law, the fullness of our demand is Womanhood Suffrage. If the present qualifications be retained we shall be satisfied to come in on the same basis.'
The difficulty of the situation in the House lies in the fact that the woman suffrage supporters there are not united on any specific form of woman suffrage. The Conciliation Committee, composed of members of all parties, was formed to devise some measure which would secure the support of the largest number of woman suffragists. The Conciliation Bill was a proposal to give votes to women householders. The first time this Bill came before the House it was carried on second reading by a very large majority, 255 voting for and 88 against. This was in 1911. In 1912 practically the same Bill was defeated by 222 to 208—a majority of 14 against the Bill. This was due to the absence of fourteen Labour members who were away on business connected with the coal strike, to the solid opposition of the Irish Party, who feared, in the interests of Home Rule, to embarrass the Government, and to the imprincipled behaviour of certain members of Parliament, former supporters, who voted against the Bill to annoy the militant society, which had broken a number of plate-glass windows as a protest, thereby punishing the innocent with the guilty.
The present position of the suffrage movement is this: Those who are militant, or who sympathise with militancy, demand a Government measure of full Adult Suffrage, and will rest content with nothing less. To this end they pester Cabinet Ministers at public meetings, destroy property, oppose Liberal candidates and all those who, by their support in the House, help to keep the Government in power. This includes a systematic attack upon the Labour Party and its candidates, although the Labour Party's record upon this question has been excellent. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies stands for equal suffrage also; but it will accept as an instalment anything that the House might choose to give. After the loss of the opportunity which had been promised on the Reform Bill of 1912, the Union decided to reject the offer of facilities for the private Bill, and to demand a Government measure. The present by-election policy of the National Union, whereby satisfactory Labour candidates are helped before all others, is simply an extension of their old policy of helping their best friends. Now, the attitude of the party to which the candidate belongs, as well as the individual opinions of the candidate, is taken into consideration; and since woman suffrage is a part of the Labour Party's programme, and no other party has yet adopted it, the Labour candidate receives the support of the National Union if his personal views and promises are deemed sufficiently satisfactory.
Amongst suffrage societies, the Men's League for Women's Suffrage deserves cordial mention. It was founded in 1907 to give an opportunity to those men in sympathy with the women's claims to do something to help them. Its honoured president is the Earl of Lytton, and amongst its vice-presidents are the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Russell, Dr Clifford, Sir John Cockburn, Izrael Zangwill, Sir Alfred Mond, M.P., Forbes Robertson, the Rev. John Hunter, and Philip Snowden, M.P. By means of meetings, publications, and petitions it seeks, as an independent society, to advance the women's cause, and is ready at any moment to lend a hand to the women whenever speakers are wanted for their platforms or stewards for their meetings. The Men's League is held in high esteem by the various woman suffrage societies, and has engaged public interest by allying itself with other Leagues in the formation of an International Men's League for Woman Suffrage, thus emphasising the world-wide character of the cause for which they are striving.
The woman suffrage question in this country now occupies a position from which time cannot dislodge it, except to settle it in a way satisfactory to the woman suffragists. It has become a question of very practical politics. No Parliament of the future will dare to play with it as it has done in the past. Nothing but the granting of their prayer will allay the agitation in the country. Public opinion is very rapidly coming to the side of the unenfranchised sex. During the last few years numerous societies not strictly suffrage have petitioned Parliament for this reform. These include the British Women's Temperance Association (155,000 members), the Scottish Temperance Union (42,000), the Women's Liberal Federation, the National Union of Women Workers, the Headmistresses' Association, the University Teachers, the Assistant Mistresses, the Registered Nurses, the Women's Co-operative Guild, the Manchester Women's Trades and Labour Council.
Resolutions in favour of the Conciliation Bill, which proposed to give votes to women householders, were passed by 149 County, Borough, or District Councils, 49 Trades Councils, and 36 Trade Unions. In addition, the Annual Congress of the Labour Party, which has made woman suffrage a part of its programme, passed a resolution in which it declared that the Reform Bill would not be acceptable if, on the third reading, it did not include women. The Independent Labour Party went further, and, at its Annual Congress, directed its Parliamentary representatives to vote against the third reading of the Reform Bill if it did not include women. The Co-operative movement, which has two millions and a half of members, has also declared for equal suffrage for men and women.
Since 1851 nearly two thousand woman suffrage petitions, containing the names of more than one million petitioners, have been presented to the House of Commons. These include an Appeal in 1896, signed by 257,000 women, and a Declaration signed by 52,000 working and professional women in 1906. But the most remarkable petitions were those presented in 1909 and 1910, which were signed by 280,000 men who were all Parliamentary voters. In Barnsley 7550 voters signed the women's petition, and in Blackburn 6463 Parliamentary electors petitioned for woman suffrage. Perhaps the most striking petition presented was one from Sheffield, signed by 5020 men, all voters, in a constituency which is represented by a member who was returned by only 8521 votes. These signatures of voters were secured by workers in 250 out of a total of 670 Parhamentary divisions, so that it is obvious that the number of petitioners would have been much greater had the work been carried into every constituency. In 1911, 1800 electors of the University of London signed a Memorial to the Prime Minister protesting against the exclusion of women members of the University from the Parliamentary franchise.
The number of meetings that have been held during the last six years on behalf of woman suffrage is incalculable, but more than 5000 indoor meetings are known to have taken place, including a large number of Albert Hall demonstrations—in addition to a Hyde Park meeting attended by half a million people. During the same period nearly £250,000 have been raised for their work by the various suffrage societies.
No other cause and no other movement has made such progress in so short a time as the movement for the political enfranchisement of women. The chief stumbling-block in the way of Parliamentary success is the fear of politicians that their respective parties may suffer at the hands of the new voters, and that they themselves may be the first to be called upon to endure defeat at the polls when women vote. This fear, and masculine prejudice, are the two great obstacles which have to be overcome, but history reveals the fact that prejudice has been strong before, and that it has had to go down before the onslaught of enlightened public opinion.