Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:53:00.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Actresses' Franchise League and the Campaign for Women's Suffrage 1908–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Claire Hirshfield
Claire Hirshfield
Affiliation:
Claire HirshfieldLectures atThe Pennsylvania State University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the great suffrage campaign waged in the decade preceding the First World War, women established a multitude of organizations in order to exert collective pressure upon a reluctant House of Commons. Some, such as the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), which was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst, favored confrontational tactics and resorted to occasional violence against property, as a means of attracting notice to the cause. Others, most notably the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) over which Mrs Millicent Fawcett presided, defined themselves as ‘constitutional’ and utilized the classic methods of persuasion and lobbying, in preference to the more dramatic tactics of their ‘militant’ sisters. Between the extremes of the WSPU and the NUWSS were numerous organizations composed of women activists of varying backgrounds, occupations, and views, sharing nonetheless a common dedication to the principle of female enfranchisement and caught up in the excitement and pageantry of a campaign which at times appeared almost religious in tone and character.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Summer 1985 , pp. 129 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. , A. J. R. (ed.), The Suffrage Annual and Women's Who's Who (London, 1913), pp. 11–12Google Scholar. See also Lowndes, Mary, ‘On Banners and Banner Making’, The Englishwoman, vol. 7, no. 20 (09 1910), 172–8.Google Scholar

2. Suffrage Annual, pp. 134–7.

3. Ibid., pp. 9–11.

4. Harrison, Brian, Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women's Suffrage in Britain (London, 1978), p. 195.Google Scholar

5. The Referee, 13 11 1910.

6. Quoted in Rover, Constance, Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain 1866–1914 (London, 1967), p. 123.Google Scholar

7. Hume, Leslie Parker, The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (New York, 1982), p. 44.Google Scholar

8. Suffrage Annual, p. 306; pp. 353–4.

9. Ibid., pp. 10–11. See also Moore, Eva, Exits and Entrances (London, 1923), p. 94.Google Scholar

10. Hunt, Bampton (ed.), The Green Room Book: Who's Who on the Stage (London, 1906), pp. 436–7Google Scholar. See also Moore, p. 94.

11. McCarthy, Lillah, Myself and My Friends (New York, 1933), p. 148.Google Scholar

12. Actresses' Franchise League, Annual Report, 1912–1913, p. 12.

13. Moore, p. 94. For the careers of Decima and Eva Moore, seeThe Green Room Book, pp. 245–6.

14. Among Mrs Ryley's plays: Mice and Men, The Grass Widow, Altar of Friendship and Mrs. Grundy, the last a vehicle for Johnston Forbes-Robertson and his wife, Gertrude Elliott. See Forbes-Robertson, Johnston, A Player Under Three Reigns (Boston, 1925), p. 222Google Scholar; pp. 259–60.

15. Arncliffe-Sennett, Maud, The Child (London, 1938), pp. 333–4.Google Scholar See also The Queen, 27 March 1909. For her election to the Executive Committee see Winifred Mayo to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, London, 11 Nov. 1911, British Museum, London, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 15, no. 15 (hereafter cited as Arncliffe-Sennett Papers).

16. Moore, p. 94; Vanbrugh, Irene, To Tell My Story (London, 1949), p. 83.Google Scholar

17. Daily News, 16 April 1909.

18. Steen, Marguerite, A Pride of Terrys (London, 1962), p. 305Google Scholar.

19. Woman's Franchise, 13 May 1909.

20. Housman was a strong suffragist with ties to the WSPU. His play Alice in Ganderland was privately published in 1911 (Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 15, no. 22).

21. The Referee, 13 Nov. 1910.

22. Rover, p. 129.

23. Hume, pp. 80–89.

24. Ibid., p. 107.

25. Rosen, Andrew, Rise Up Women (London, 1974), p. 149Google Scholar; Fulford, Roger, Votes for Women (London, 1956), pp. 124–5Google Scholar.

26. Great Procession of Women, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 14, no. 55.

27. Sunday Times, 18 June 1911.

28. The Observer, 18 June 1911.

29. Pall Mall Gazette, 19 June 1911.

30. Ashwell, Lena, Myself a Player (London, 1936), p. 168.Google Scholar See also Moore, pp. 94–5.

31. Votes for Women, 21 July 1911.

32. See Actresses' Franchise League, Cash Statement 1910–1911, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 14, no. 66.

33. Moore, p. 95.

34. Vaughan, Gertrude, The Woman with the Pack (London, 1911).Google Scholar The play was given its initial performance on 8 December 1911 by the AFL. See Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 16, no. 11.

35. Bensusan, Inez, The Apple (London, 1911), p. 9.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 26.

37. Arncliffe-Sennett, H. H., An Englishwoman's Home (London, 1911).Google Scholar The play was frequently performed and usually well received by the press. See for example East Anglia Daily Times, 11 May 1911.

38. The Standard, 26 October, 1911.

39. Moore, pp. 96–7.

40. Ashwell, p. 164.

41. Arncliffe-Sennett, The Child, pp. 61–3.

42. Ashwell, p. 165. For Asquith's promise, see Hume, pp. 117–18.

43. Rover, pp. 127–8; Rosen, pp. 96–7.

44. McCarthy, p. 149.

45. Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 12, no. 15.

46. Cited by Hume, pp. 132–3.

47. Actresses' Franchise League, Resolution, 30 January 1912, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 16, no. 55.

48. Actresses' Franchise League, Annual Report, 1912–13, pp. 11–12. The Play Department's most ambitious project of 1912 was a four act suffrage play, The Better Half, by Alison Garland, which was performed for the delegates to the annual meeting of the Women's Liberal Federation. So enthusiastic was the response that the play was restaged at King's Hall, Covent Garden in 1913 to respectable reviews (The Standard, 7 May 1913).

49. The Standard, 16 March 1912. For her fear of public speaking, see Moore, pp. 90–91.

50. Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, 6 March 1912, vol. 16, no. 95.

51. The Standard, 26 June 1912.

52. Actresses' Franchise League, Annual Report, 1912–13, p. 7.

53. Rosen, pp. 183–4.

54. Votes for Women, 27 December 1912.

55. The Times, 15 January 1913; The Suffragette, 17 January 1913.

56. Actresses' Franchise League, Annual Report, 1912–13, p. 9.

57. McCarthy, p. 149.

58. Rosen, pp. 191–5.

59. Daily Telegraph, 25 April 1913.

60. The Globe, 26 April 1913.

61. Daily Telegraph, 3 May 1913. See also Vanbrugh, p. 83.

62. Forbes-Robertson was in the midst of his ‘farewell season’ at Drury Lane in the Spring of 1913 (Forbes-Robertson, pp. 297–8).

63. Actresses' Franchise League, Programme, 2 May 1913, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 22, no. 18.

64. Ibid. See also Morning Post, 3 May 1913.

65. Ibid. For her views on the exploitation of labour, see Ashwell, pp. 171–2.

66. The Referee wickedly noted: ‘The popular actress apparently forgot that poor Lady Macbeth was the first to “wilt” as to that murder business and that she never really got over it but drooped and died' (The Referee, 4 May 1913).

67. Ibid.

68. Morning Post, 3 May 1913.

69. Daily Chronicle, 3 May 1913; Morning Post, 3 May 1913.

70. Vanbrugh, pp. 83–4.

71. The Referee, 4 May 1913.

72. Winifred Mayo to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, London, 21 May 1913, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 22, no. 43.

73. Vanbrugh, p. 84.

74. Winifred Mayo to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, London, 8 June 1913, Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 23, no. 20.

75. Same to same, London, 29 May 1913, ibid., vol. 22, no. 75.

76. Actresses' Franchise League, Annual Report, 1912–13, p. 8.

77. Arncliffe-Sennett Papers, vol. 23, no. 94.

78. Ibid., vol. 24, no. 39. A newly organized men's auxiliary, chiefly composed of AFL members' husbands, also took part.

79. Ibid., vol. 23, no. 98.

80. See for example E. Rosslyn Mitchell to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, Glasgow, 10 September 1913, ibid., vol. 24, no. 43.

81. See especially Lady Cowdray to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, London, 9 September 1913, ibid., vol. 25, no. 63.

82. Winifred Mayo to Maud Arncliffe-Sennett, London, 17 January 1914, ibid., vol. 25, no. 95.

83. Same to same, London, 23 January 1914, ibid., no. 96.

84. Ashwell, p. 183. See also Churchill, Lady Randolph, Women's War Work (London, 1916), pp. 45–7Google Scholar.

85. The Child, pp. 194–5.

86. Ashwell, pp. 194–223. See also Mrs Tweedie, Alec, Women and Soldiers (London, 1918), p. 129Google Scholar.

87. The Child, pp. 67–8.

88. Fulford, p. 306.

89. Bolitho, Hector, Marze Tempest (London, 1937), pp. 143–4Google Scholar.

90. Ashwell, p. 164. Ashwell also describes an unpleasant scene with Sir Beerbohm Tree: ‘Once when I went to see Tree, I had in my hand a book called “The Soul of a Suffragette”…. Tree picked it up and with a magnificent gesture of contempt flung it into the far corner of the room’ (ibid.). For the unpopularity of the cause see Rowlands, Peter, The Last Liberal Governments: Unfinished Business 1911–1914 (New York, 1971), pp. 349–50Google Scholar.

91. Moore, p. 96.

92. Robins, Elizabeth, Theatre and Friendship (New York, 1932), pp. 33–4Google Scholar.

93. See Robins' correspondence with Henry James, ibid., pp. 258–64.

94. McCarthy (prefatory note), p. 8.

95. Ibid., pp. 62–3.

96. Ibid., pp. 74–5.

97. Ibid., pp. 63–4.

98. Ibid., p. 8.

99. The Times, 27 April 1911.