More of This Feature • General • Mosaic Law, Ancient India • Roman Law • Christian Law • Northern Europe Law • English Law • Husband and Wife • Criminal Law • Education • Professions • Nursing and Medicine • Government and Politics • Women Practicing Law • Women as Clergy • Women's Rights Agitation • Woman Suffrage   • Woman Suffrage 1865-1906 • Woman Suffrage 1906-1910 • Woman Suffrage Societies • Woman Suffrage New Zealand and Australia • Woman Suffrage America • Woman Suffrage Europe • Woman Suffrage International • Sources

Related Resources • Index to Etexts on Women's History • Woman Suffrage 1900-1920 • Woman Suffrage: Britain

Note that this entry is a product of its time, and should be read in that context. Footnotes have been omitted to make the text easier to follow. Also note that scanning and editing may have introduced a few errors into the transcription. Because of these errors, if you need to use this information in an academic paper, please consult the original, available at many libraries.

This continues the entry under "Women" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.

Previous page > Woman Suffrage 1865-1906

The period 1906 to 1910 witnessed entirely new developments. The suffragists of the existing societies still carried on their constitutional propaganda, and various bills were introduced. In 1907 Mr W. H. Dickinson's bill was talked out, and in 1908 Mr H. Y. Stanger's bill was carried on its second reading by a majority of 179, but the government refused facilities for its progress. Prior to this, however, a number of suffragists had come to the conclusion that the failure of the various bills was due primarily to government hostility. Furthermore the advent of a Liberal government in 1906 had aroused hopes among them that the question would be officially taken up. Questions were therefore put by women to Liberal cabinet ministers at party meetings, and disturbances occurred, with the result that Miss Christabel Pankhurst and Miss Annie Kenney were fined in Manchester in 1906. A certain section of suffragists thereafter decided upon comprehensive opposition to the government of the day, until such time as one or other party should officially adopt a measure for the enfranchisement of women. This opposition took two forms, one that of conducting campaigns against government nominees (whether friendly or not) at bye-elections, and the other that of committing breaches of the law with a view to drawing the widest possible attention to their cause and so forcing the authorities to fine or imprison them. Large numbers of women assembled while parliament was sitting, in contravention of the regulations, and on several occasions many arrests were made. Fines were imposed, but practically all refused to pay them and suffered imprisonment. At a later stage some of the prisoners adopted the further course of refusing food and were forcibly fed in the gaols.

The failure of all the bills previously drafted on the basis of exact equality between the sexes, and the fact that both Unionists and Liberals refused to make the matter a party question, coupled with a general feeling of discomfort at the relations between the so-called " militant " suffragists and the authorities, led in the spring of 1910 to the formation of a committee (called the Conciliation Committee) of members of parliament under the presidency of the earl of Lytton. This committee, consisting of some 55 members belonging to all parties, succeeded in agreeing upon a new bill based upon the occupier franchise established by the Municipal Franchise Act of 1884. It was urged on behalf of this bill that it would establish the principle on a sufficiently representative basis without altering the numerical balance of parties in' the country. It was calculated that slightly over 1,000,000 women would be enfranchised. After considerable pressure both inside the house and outside, Mr Asquith consented to give two days of government time for the debate, and the second reading, moved by the Labour member, Mr D. J. Shackleton, was carried by a majority of 110 votes. A further attempt to commit the bill to a Grand Committee failed by 175 votes; the bill was therefore sent to a committee of the whole house, and Mr Asquith announced that he would not give further facilities. It was noteworthy that, though the bill was opposed as undemocratic by Mr Lloyd-George and other Liberals, it was supported by 32 out of 40 of the Labour members, and evidence was given that a large proportion of the new voters would have been working women.

Next page > Woman Suffrage Societies

More of this article: General | Mosaic Law, Ancient India | Roman Law | Christian Law  | Northern Europe Law | English Law | Husband and Wife | Criminal Law | Education | Professions | Nursing and Medicine | Government and Politics | Women Practicing Law | Women as Clergy | Women's Rights Agitation | Woman Suffrage | Woman Suffrage 1865-1906 | Woman Suffrage 1906-1910 | Woman Suffrage Societies | Woman Suffrage New Zealand and Australia | Woman Suffrage America | Woman Suffrage Europe | Woman Suffrage International | Sources

<Index to Etexts on Women's History>

Part of a collection of etexts on women's history produced by Jone Johnson Lewis. Editing and formatting © 1999-2003 Jone Johnson Lewis.