|
Thanks for that link Joonie.
Interesting that in 1911 there was a majority of MPs in favour of extending the francise to women but it took another 17 years before it was properly sorted.
|
|
of course Kense - that's the explanation
it's unfortunate that social justice movements often didn't start out calling for real social justice (for instance, true universal suffrage in this case)
(as another example, the men who were black militants in the US in the 1960s were equally negligent and in fact outright contemptuous of the interests of women within their own movement at times, which was far less excusable given that it was a half-century later)
it is also unfortunate of course that women's rights activists tend to be the only ones against whom such accusations are leveled :-)
... women have been expected to shoulder the causes of all disadavantaged people, often without a thought for our own problems and injustices ...
these suffragettes of means in 1911 were indeed seeking 'equality with men'
but others had broader goals ... interesting summary here
http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.ca/2008/04/suffrage-since-1903-political-context.html
... mirrors the ongoing differences within feminism between 'liberal' feminists (who want formal equality, such as was represented by equality of suffrage at the time) and those who seek more thorough-going social change in women's status (the 'emancipation' of a century ago)
|
|
Suffragettes wanted the same voting powers as men. At that time possibly as many as 42% of men could not vote because of property qualifications. So women without property didn't have the same incentive. Many, of course, wanted universal suffrage and belonged to the less militant suffragist movement.
|
|
That what was going through my mind whilst reading part of the 'book'.
Many entries listed the number of rooms which would indicate rather large houses. Although times have now changed, quite a few addresses were/are in affluent areas.
|
|
Ah, I knew somebody would have done the job by now!
and added details, e.g. Violet for Miss Tillard
the book notes the 5 female servants in the Marks household as 'all resisters', but I tend to think the resisting was done on their behalf, with or without their agreement
essentially, all of the resisters, and of course almost all of the suffragettes, were women of means, often their own, or at least their husbands'
it was not a grassroots/mass movement, in any parts of the English-speaking world where it developed
|
|
A number of the No vote- no census are gathered together in a book
http://tinyurl.com/oj62b8v
|
|
Octavia Margaret Sophia Lewin 1869 – 1955 MB, BS London 1896, MD Chicago (homeopathy) was a Registrar and the Assistant Physician the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and an active suffragist.
Octavia Margaret Sophia Lewin was a close colleague, activist and confident (Elizabeth Crawford, The Women’s Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide, 1866-1928, (Routledge, 2001). Page 423) of the Pankhurst family.
http://tinyurl.com/pm5hknl
|
|
They could add them to the Comments section on Ancestry - it would be a nice little find for future researchers; those who weren't told of a family activist.
|
|
on a search for a person in 1911, I ran across these entries by accident :-)
Name: Miss Tillard
Civil Parish: Lambeth
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street address: 91 Fentiman Road S W
Occupation: NO VOTE NO CENSUS, SHOULD WOMEN BECOME PERSONS IN THE EYE OF THE LAW THIS SESSION FULL INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED
Name: Muriel Matters
Civil Parish: Lambeth
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street address: 91 Fentiman Road S W
Occupation: NO VOTE NO CENSUS, AS I AM NOT A PERSON UNDER THE FRANCHISE LAWS, I AM NOT A PERSON FOR CENSUS PURPOSES
Name: Margaret Jewson
Civil Parish: Lambeth
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street address: 91 Fentiman Road, Kennington S W
Occupation: I SHALL BE PLEASED TO SUPPLY ALL INFORMATION WHEN THE FRANCHIS ACT IS PASSED AND I AM RECOGNISED AS A PERSON - NO VOTE, NO CENSUS
and another example
Octavia Lewin 30
Miss Lewin 28
Anonymous 40
Anonymous 30
Anonymous 25
Anonymous 30 cook
Anonymous 28 household
Anonymous 26 parlourmaid
Anonymous 24 kitchenmaid
where the head of household has written
'no vote - no census
I absolutely refuse to give any information'
and indicated that she is an MD etc and an assistant physician
all the other info was filled out by the enumerator
the census registrar has noted the refusal to give info and that the numbers stated are estimates
of course I knew about this campaign, I just had not encountered any examples of the household schedules
on searching for 'occupation: vote' (which is where Ancestry has transcribed the statements) there are only fewer than 50
of course Ancestry did not handle the situation well
it has messed up the household for Beatrice Le Mesurier and Jessy Wade, occupations: suffragist (unpaid), employer: Women's Freedom League, and the several nameless individuals also entered on the form by the enumerator, who wrote:
'open house to suffragettes on 2 apr 1911
all information refused
ascertained that 3 females actually reside here'
another example
Alfred Samuel Marks 53 member of the stock exchange
Marie Marks 40 occupation 'militant suffragette'
Bertram Alfred Marks 19
Anonymous 40
Anonymous 38
Anonymous 36
Anonymous 30
Anonymous 28
Anonymous 26
Anonymous 24
the 'anonymous' entries relate to the enumerator's note:
'I have reason to believe that a number of militant suffragettes were in these premises last night'
and the enumerator also recorded notes about Marie Marks
searching for 'occupation: suffragette' finds some more ... but also several for whom there are details missing because they slept away but are NOT suffragettes, and an ex-teacher ANTI suffragette :-D
So I wonder ... now that women have the vote ... although it wasn't in 'this session' ... would it be proper (e.g. for family) to make corrections at Ancestry to give identifying information? :-)
I fear that the 'anonymous' suffragettes, and the anonymous servants of suffragettes who refused to give their info, are lost to history now, though
|
