The campaign for equal rights for women dates back a long way but started to gain more traction in the mid 1800’s. This time in history is packed full of change, much of which is entrepreneurial and contentious.
The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies was formed in 1866 with Millicent Garrett Fawcett as the head of this movement (now more commonly known as Suffragists), the organisation attracted supporters who were determined to campaign but to do so through ‘accepted’ channels, rather than using force.
It was not until 1903 that the Women’s Social and Political Union was formed, these women became better known by their nickname ‘Suffragettes’. You might remember the Pankhursts, who were the central figures of this more militant movement. Emmeline was the mother, Sylvia, Christabel and Adela her daughters who were all involved at various levels, Richard Pankhurst, Emmeline’s husband was also a supporter, though the Suffragette movement didn’t become militant until after his death. There was much controversy around the militant movement of the Suffragettes, men and women were concerned about the use of violence and other very prominent acts of agitation. The informal uniform of a Suffragette was a white dress with a purple and green sash or badge. Purple stood for loyalty, white for purity and green for hope. They would use these colours in various ways including on publicity materials, jewellery, adornments to hats such as purple feathers and on banners, medals, and crockery to name but a few.
The photos above show a selection of materials including a ticket for a procession in Hyde Park, a pamphlet detailing the plan to petition the King, a postcard illustrating the deadly nature of the Cat and Mouse Act and a song sheet with words for the Suffragette Anthem ‘The March of the Women’
As we’re in Sussex, I’ve been hunting for local women who were involved. Here are a few names of those who were part of the suffrage movement, some suffragists, others taking part in the militant campaign of the suffragettes.
Barbara Leigh Smyth Bodichon who was born in Hastings, her parents caused a scandal because father was an MP, mother a Milliner but they never married, despite living together as much of the time as they could. Barbara was born in 1827, her mother died when she was only 7 years old, and unusually for the time, her father brought her and her four brothers and sisters up himself. On their 21st birthdays, their father set up an annual salary of £300 to aid their independence, again a very unusual act, especially as he did this for each child, regardless of their gender. Barbara worked to bring about change, writing and speaking publicly about the rights of women including the need for reform to the laws on divorce, and also women’s right to vote. She was part of an important movement to collect signatures of women who wanted the right to vote, gaining enough to bring to Parliament itself. She was also passionate about women’s education.
Clementina Black was born in Brighton in 1854, the eldest child of seven brothers and sisters. She became friends with Eleanor Marx, daughter of political philosopher Karl Marx and as a result became involved in the trade union movement, helping to form the Women’s Trade Union Association in 1889.
In 1906 Clementina Black was appointed as honorary secretary to the Women's Franchise Declaration Committee and was responsible for organising the petition demanding the vote that was signed by 257,000 women. In 1911 she became vice-president of the National Union of Suffrage Societies. She also held a similar role in London Society for Women's Suffrage. From 1912 to 1913 she was acting editor of The Common Cause.
Elsie Bowerman, born in Tunbridge Wells in 1889, died in Eastbourne in 1973. She became a supporter of the suffrage movement whilst at Girton College, Cambridge. A college which had been founded by Barbara Bodichon! She joined the Hastings branch of the WSPU and became Christabel Pankhurst’s right hand woman. She was also one of the first women to gain a law degree, and campaigned all her life for equality and education.
There are so many suffragette stories, many lost to history because of the sheer numbers, others lost due to other factors, including political persuasion. Last summer I found myself being drawn to one woman in particular, regular readers of this Substack will recognise her name!
Helen Crawfurd.
Born 1877 – Glasgow to a master baker, middle of 6 children. She and all her siblings were educated, both boys and girls, her parents ensured they could all read and write, encouraging them by ordering deliveries of newspapers and comics of their choice.
Avid seeker of justice for those who were being oppressed, right from a young age. As a teenager she taught youngsters, especially girls who lived in the Glaswegian slums. They were a religious family, regular attending church and debating the sermon often.
She married in 1898 (she aged 21, her husband aged 69!) Her husband, Rev Alexander Crawfurd (vicar of the church they attended), did not approve of her reading books, especially fiction but she did it anyway. Her memoir recalls her first husband with great warmth and fondness, though she acknowledges it was not easy.
In 1906 Helen joined the WSPU
Her militant campaign included – stone throwing in London, disrupting the King’s visit to Glasgow, speaking at events, ‘assisting’ a bombing event
She was imprisoned four times, but never endured being force fed, mainly because this practice was not wide-spread in Scottish jails
She was a prolific speaker and writer of articles and pamphlets to encourage and educate
Her husband and Mother both died in 1914, Father had already died, so Helen and 3 of her siblings shared a ‘flat’ in Alexandra Place, Glasgow. Her husband left the majority of his wealth to Helen so she was independent. As war broke out, the Pankhursts, who had been urging women to campaign hard and with increasingly anti-social behaviour (disruption of political debates by shouting ‘When will women get the vote?’, marches, stone throwing, setting fire to empty property of well-known figures, acid in post boxes, bombs), called a halt to all militant acts and demanded that women put their effort into supporting the government at war. Helen was outraged, and got together with a few other women to form the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Peace Crusade also followed. In 1915, Helen was involved alongside Mary Barbour and other members of the Glasgow Women’s Housing Association in organising one of the largest political protests that had ever been seen in the city centre, against landlords who had raised rents at the beginning of the war. The Glasgow Rent Strikes in 1915 caused a UK wide change in the law and landlords were not legally allowed to raise rents unless there has been some improvement to the property.
Helen’s commitment to the socialist cause was unshakeable, and even after the first act of parliament to grant some women (over 30 and with property) the vote was passed in 1918, she continued to campaign for true equality in the law and for education of the working class. At some point she took her commitment a step further and became one of the founding members of the Community Party of Great Britain. Which is one of the reasons we don’t hear her name mentioned much alongside the likes of Mary Barbour (Glasgow’s champion of the suffrage movement and other social reforms), Charlotte Despard and, of course, the Pankhursts. Her surviving family refer to her as their ‘Red Aunt’.
In 1920, three years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Helen travelled to Russia, by herself. She went on a boat from Newcastle to Bergen, then a train across Norway to Oslo where she was told she couldn’t go any further by train because of a strike. She had been planning to cross into Sweden to Stockholm and then on a boat, possibly via Helsinki in Finland (you can’t do the journey direct to St Petersburg today, but I can’t find out whether it would have been possible to do that in 1920). It’s a journey of around 1000 miles, from Oslo to St Petersburg (Petrograd as it was in 1920). But because Helen had to change her journey, it was more like 5,000miles! She ended up heading north to Trondheim in Norway, then, after having her passport taken by the Norwegian police, she managed to find a fishing boat that would take her around the northern coastline of Norway to the Murmansk coastline (furthest northeastern corner of Russia). She then boarded a troop steam train down to St Petersburg. Noone else on the train spoke any English, coal was not readily available for the train’s engine so they were using wood. Her memoir recalls parts of the train kept catching fire, and would have to be put out by those travelling with her.
Helen’s utterly indomitable spirit meant she took all this in her stride, seeing it all as a huge adventure. While she was in Russia this time, she had an interview with Lenin and his wife, who she seems to have been totally enraptured by. Lenin died in 1924, but Helen went back to Russia 4 more times in her lifetime.
Women were given the vote first in 1918, although not equally to men, it wasn’t until 1928 that women and men were on equal footing as far as voting rights were concerned.
Using our right to vote is the best, hardest won, way to make our voices heard!
POCKETS & SEDITION
I said at the beginning that the mid to late 1800’s was a period of great change, that much of this change was contentious and controversial (as is true of any change actually, even though life is full of it!). Another expression of change which really relates to the history of women’s freedom and equal rights happens in the world of women’s clothing during this period of time. Specifically, the issue of pockets in women’s clothing.
First let’s go back a little further: by the 1700’s pockets were made separately to any clothing – for men and women. They were made to tie around the waist and increasingly, by this point in history, were worn beneath clothing to prevent them being taken by ‘cut-purse’ thieves. The outer layers would have slits sewn in to give the wearer easy access to the pocket, which at this time were spacious to say the least.
I came across stories of women carrying all manner of items including, stolen items secreted in the pockets of a woman called Francis Burk (she cannot have been the only servant to do so!) including a silk handkerchief, a pair of stays, a linen apron, three quarters of a yard of flowered cotton and a linen bib all from her employer; a woman called Jane Griffith who was caught with 2 live ducks stuffed into her pockets, ducks belonging to a man called Thomas Wainwright; and another woman, Sarah Hurst, who carried a picture in miniature of her secret lover, a Captain Henry Smith, around with her, along with her diary that held declarations of her love. There were women who carried guns, sewing kits, snuffboxes, combs, keys, spectacles, watches, scent bottles and even food.
All this was made reasonably straightforward by women’s fashion at the time being to wear voluminous skirts with yards and yards of fabric including several petticoats to maintain the width of the skirts. In the middle of this century, the fashions began to change and at the same time the French Revolution was taking hold. Women’s fashion favoured a narrower silhouette, with far less fabric and fewer underskirts, leaving less room for bulky pockets underneath. Some historians have argued that this led to the invention of the ‘reticule’ or handbag, which women have had a love-hate relationship with ever since! The French Revolution saw the possibility of women having the means to conceal items becoming dangerous to those with power. At the time it seems women often carried, not only written material that was subversive to the state, but also weapons, hidden in their skirts.
Towards the end of the 1800’s the Rational Dress Society was formed to try and counteract the extremes of women’s fashion. Founded in London they were protesting against clothing which ‘deforms the figure, impedes movement of the body or in any way tends to injure the health’. They produced a list of 5 attributes of “perfect” clothing for women,
1. Freedom of Movement.
2. Absence of pressure over any part of the body.
3. Not more weight than is necessary for warmth, and both weight and warmth evenly distributed.
4. Grace and beauty combined with comfort and convenience.
5. Not departing too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time.
Despite pockets not being mentioned on the list, they were given a prominence not seen previously.
It is interesting to note that the Rational Dress Society believed that dress reform needed to come before any other movement towards independence for women could be achieved, including rights and equality. In their publication the Rational Dress Gazette, it states “Financial independence is the basis of woman’s as well as man’s liberty. That she cannot gain whilst weakening and obstructing her body by a dress ‘a la mode’”
In 1899 a New York Times article makes a light-hearted and yet enlightening statement, “As we become more civilized, we need more pockets. No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us whole it is pocketless.”
Pockets made the men nervous, especially those whose way of life depended on keeping women dependent on them. Of course, this is still true today!
The new pockets, brought about by the Rational Dress movement, arguably represented a massive shift not only in sartorial terms, but also because it paved the way for other crucial freedoms for women: financial independence, privacy, mobility and sexuality.
It’s a fight we’re still in today, for pockets, and all they represent to our freedoms.
If you’ve enjoyed reading this, please let me know! Perhaps you know someone else who might also like to read this post, or any of the others. If so, please share it in whichever way might be appropriate.