The Essay: Reasons for the Growth of British democracy.

There is a good chance this particular question will come up in the 2013 Higher exam. However, it may also feature in the 2014 exam…the SQA can be very unpredictable.

We have already completed an essay on the Extent of British democracy; this guide I have prepared will help you write an essay on the reasons for the Growth in British democracy. Aspects of this essay will be alien to you, don’t worry. The beauty of the British Section is that every mini unit relates to another and by the end of the entire unit…it will all make sense. For example, you will have to mention the Suffragettes and the impact of WW1 in this essay – you will study this in more detail at a later date.

Some examples of questions from previous years.

2011 - How important was the role of pressure groups in Britain becoming more democraticbetween 1851 and 1928?

2008 - To what extent was the growth of democracy in Britain after 1860 due to social andeconomic change?

Here you have to analyse what is called the isolated factor listed in the question. In terms of structure you have to analyse the importance of this factor. If it wasn’t important it wouldn’t be alluded to in the question! It is wise to analyse the isolated factor in the first paragraph of your main section. This is important for structure.

A key point to remember is that there will be at least 3 or 4 other important factors for you to discuss and analyse.

Introduction

In any introduction you need to set the question in context. You also need to allude-link to the question posed by the SQA. A good way to do this is by posing or repeating the question again. You should also refer to the isolated factor, but concede other important factors. By doing this, you will make it clear to the reader how your essay will flow. I.e if you mention pressure groups, political advantage and foreign influences I would expect a paragraph on each. Below is an example of an introduction I would use for the 2008 question. *NB – I have not chosen to define democracy in this introduction – I would for the other question. However, you can do this if you like.

1

Between 1850 and 1928 British democracy witnessed a dramatic transformation and a series of political reform was passed by successive governments. Many argue that Britain became a model of modern democracy by 1928 but why did it take so long to arrive? What were the main factors influencing political reform? There is no doubt social and economic change heavily influenced society and to many, political change seemed inevitable. However, one cannot ignore other important factors like the changing attitudes to democracy and the role of Pressure Groups. Foreign influences, political advantage and the impact of the Great War are also crucial factors which must be analysed in order to reach a conclusion. This essay will explore the reasons behind the growth of British Democracy.

Essay Guide

This guide will hopefully assist you in writing an essay on The Reasons behind the Growth in British democracy. I originally listed The Great War as a stand alone factor, however I would incorporate the impact of war in to the section on Pressure Groups. (You will understand why when you read that particular section.)

There is 5 factors you should consider for this essay and 5 paragraphs in the main body of any Higher essay is perfectly adequate. Particularly when you consider you can gain at least 2 marks for analysis in every paragraph – if you use the correct technique and construct an argument.

There is no right or wrong answer in this essay. Every factor is important in some way, although the evidence suggests that some factors are more important than others. For example, there is overwhelming evidence that political advantage was a key factor in the reform of 1867 and 1885. However, your essay must be balanced and you must discuss the other factors – even if it is to argue against one of the other factors i.e – Pressure Groups.

Social and Economic change Changing attitudes/political ideology Political Advantage Pressure Groups Foreign Influences

2

FACTOR 1 – SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE

Social and Economic change – this includes industrialisation/urbanisation/ demographic/population changes and the development of railways.

The industrial revolution changed where people lived, how they worked and how they felt about their position in society. It was a major contributor to greater urbanisation – demographic change and the emergence of class structures. These social and economic changes created pressures which politicians in the later 19th century had to respond to.

One of the biggest pressures was demographic change, particularly population distribution. Up until 1750 80% of the population worked in the countryside. However, industrialisation meant towns/cities grew and by 1850 50% of people lived in cities – 75% by 1900.The population of Great Britain increased from 16 million in 1801 to 41 million in 1901. In 1832 Rotten Boroughs were abolished but there was no significant changes made with regards to seat distribution. The migration of people from the countryside to the urban areas meant that growing cities like Manchester and Glasgow had little representation. The political system was outdated and the 1867 Reform Act gave extra seats to industrial cities like Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. 1885 and 1918 also witnessed the reorganisation of constituencies – this was all down to urbanisation. This is clear evidence that demographic changes influenced political reform and you should remember this for your essay.

The 1832 Act enfranchised members of the urban middle class (in towns and cities) and they began to challenge the old ruling class for power. The middle classes believed that as wealth creators (managers, factory/small business owners) they should have more say in the running of the country. Members of the urban middle class also argued that the skilled working class were vital to the economic success of the Britain and the success of the

3

The Opening of the Manchester to Liverpool Railway in 1830.

Growing industry and the urbanisation of Britain.

Empire. During the 19th Century Britain was the world leader in imports and exports. Urbanisation also led to the emergence of a working class identity – even before the 2nd Reform Act of 1867 skilled working class men (known as artisans) were more educated and respectable – they attended night schools, took part in local politics and were concerned with tacking social problems and living standards.

The introduction of a compulsory education basic education for children in England and Wales (1870s) and Scotland (1880s) also helped raise political awareness of politics – many people were now ready to take the fight to the government with many joining Reform organisations or Trade Unions. The growth of public libraries also ensured people were better informed about politics.

With regards to the economy, economic growth caused social problems. Poverty was a major problem in towns and cities and many believed the only way to alleviate poverty was through increased working class involvement in politics. Solutions required political changes. The government granted the vote to the ‘skilled working class’ in towns and the countryside in 1867 and 1884 respectively.

The industrial revolution also demanded a more efficient transport system and the development of railways led to a national network of rapid and reliable communications. The historian Sydney Wood – Britain and Scotland 1850-1979 – strongly argues that this was instrumental to the development of democracy in Britain. A great example is PM William Gladstone taking advantage of the railway system to canvass Liberal support in Scotland as he toured Midlothian – known as the ‘Midlothian Campaign’. Thousands flocked to see him deliver speeches and this is considered the first modern political campaign. Gladstone became MP for Midlothian in the General Election of 1880, wrestling the seat back from the Conservatives and this proves the railways were an important feature of modern democracy. Furthermore, newspapers could be printed and transported all over the country also helped develop a national political consciousness that simply did not exist prior to industrialisation.

Activity: I would like you to attempt the 2008 question (on page 1) and begin by writing an introduction. You can use mine as a guide but I don’t want it copied word for word.

I also want you attempt the first paragraph in the main section. Don’t go overboard with KU – remember you are only awarded a maximum of 6 marks here. What you need to do is introduce the importance of this factor at the beginning of your paragraph. Then you should make some attempt to address the question and begin constructing an argument – was it or was it not an important factor and why? Keep your KU clear and concise and you can gain argument marks by providing the reform passed in the 19th and 20th century as evidence the socio-economic development of Britain WAS an important factor. Remember a sub conclusion and choose your words carefully – I want quality not quantity. Follow this instruction for every important factor.

4

FACTOR 2: Changing attitudes/political ideology.

The changing attitudes of politicians, parties and leaders can also be attributed to the growth of British democracy. From 1850-1928 technology improved, industry grew, cities grew bigger and education improved. It is clear that with all this happening, people would also change and this section will enlighten you about the changing attitudes of politicians. Why is such an important factor? Well, politicians are the policy makers who represent the people and who introduce national reform. If there is to be an extension of democracy then ultimately, the politicians will play a pivotal role. This section will focus on 4 key politicians – William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, David Lloyd George and Herbert Henry Asquith.

5

Benjamin Disraeli b. London (1804=1881)

Party: Conservative

Disraeli was Prime Minister of Britain Feb-Dec 1868 and from 1874-1880.

David Lloyd George b. Manchester (1863-1945)

Party: Liberal

Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1908-15 and Prime Minister of the Wartime coalition 1916-1922

William Gladstone b. Liverpool (1809-1898)

Party: Liberal

Gladstone was PM of Britain on 4 occasions

(1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894)

H.H Asquith b. West Yorkshire (1852-1928)

Party: Liberal

Asquith was Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1908-1916.

The changing social and economic landscape during the 19th century brought about a new working class identity and in urban (and rural) areas…it would be unwise of politicians not to recognise the increasing political awareness demonstrated by the working classes. Back in 1832 both the Liberals and Conservatives had been cautious about extending the vote and as such the franchise was only extended to the Middle class. However, the emergence of political figures like William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli gave hope to an increasingly vociferous working class movement.

Indeed, prior to the 2nd Reform Act being passed in 1867 (skilled working class in towns to be included in the franchise, albeit with property qualifications) both men had persuaded their parties to widen the electorate and improve British democracy.

Although both men championed reform, one would argue they did so for different reasons. Gladstone believed that “every man was morally entitled to vote” and that the skilled working classes deserved the vote, in recognition of their contribution to the economy and the British Empire. (I.e. Engineers in shipyards). Gladstone also saw the attraction for his own party (with him at the helm) as giving the vote to skilled working men would result in more votes for the Liberals.

Leading Conservatives like Disraeli and Lord Derby (PM in 1867) split opinion in their own party when they also suggested members of the skilled working class also merited the vote. A cynic would perhaps view the Conservative stance as one motivated more by self-interest rather than genuine warmth for the working classes – it is well known Disraeli in particular feared that opposing an extension of the franchise could lead to his party being out of power for years. Nonetheless, it was a changing political ideology from previous politicians and in summary, both Gladstone and Disraeli supported an extension of the franchise in 1867. The Reform Act passed by parliament in 1867 created over 1 million new voters and further parliamentary representation for areas like Manchester and Liverpool. Unfortunately for Disraeli and the Conservatives, their party lost power in the 1868 General Election and Gladstone became PM for the first time. It appears the working classes were more inclined to vote Liberal and the Liberals remained the party of the working class until the emergence of Labour in the 20th century.

6

This cartoon shows Gladstone and Disraeli jostling for position over the 1867 Reform Bill. Both men knew that supporting the extension of Democracy would win favour for their party. Both men wanted to be PM. Their personal conflict is analysed in greater detail in the following section. ‘Dizzy’ – the nickname the press had given Disraeli.

David Lloyd George is another character to consider. The Gladstone Era had come to an end by 1900 and the ‘Gladstonian’ age of Liberalism was over. From 1900 ‘New Liberalism’ was emerging as the vibrant new force in British politics and this new brand of Liberalism was spearheaded by Lloyd George and a young Winston Churchill. The ‘New Liberals’ believed that state intervention and social reform was needed to alleviate the problems caused by extreme poverty – Gladstone believed in the ‘laissez faire’ approach – the government should not interfere in people’s lives and they should be left alone to deal with their own personal affairs.

In any democracy power must rest with the elected house. Prior to 1909 the unelected House of Lords could reject reform passed by the elected MPs in the House of Commons. In 1908 the Liberals were in power. H.H. Asquith was PM and Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the job of the Chancellor to raise money to implement party policy and in 1909 he presented a ‘War Budget’ to the Lords. The War was on Poverty and this declaration of war would be funded by taxing the rich. The budget would help the government a system of National Insurance. However, many Conservative supporters (traditionally wealthy) would be affected by this so the Lords prevented the Bill going through. Lloyd George and Asquith were furious and called two general elections on the issue in 1910 – the Liberals won both.

George said, the men in the House of Lords were men with no training, no qualifications, no experience….were simply those whose sole qualification was that they were the first born of persons who had as few qualifications as themselves.

The Lords finally accepted defeat after King George V threatened to swamp the Lords with 1000 Liberal Lords – this would spell the end for Conservative Lords and power. The 1911 Parliament Act changed the parliamentary system in that the Lords could only delay bills for a maximum of 2 years. The right to veto any money bills was taken away completely. The same act also made elections more regular – every 7 years to every 5 years. So, there is an argument that the concept of New Liberalism and the tenacity of Lloyd George taking the fight to the Liberals helped make Britain more democratic. Lloyd George – PM during WW1 – also supported the extension of the franchise to women in recognition of their work during the Great War.

7

David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill – The New Liberals – in 1910. Can Lloyd George be credited with bringing greater democracy to Britain following his resistance to the un-elected House of Lords?

Herbert Henry Asquith was one of the main critics of Universal Suffrage and did not believe women were entitled to vote when he was PM. He often antagonised the Suffragettes with his political views – this resulted in him (and his car) being attacked. The attacks by the Suffragettes only strengthened his feelings that women were not yet ready to vote, if they were to act in such a manner.

However, all this changed with the role taken on by women during WW1 – their contribution to society and the economy changed his mind. Asquith believed that by 1918 women had earned the right to vote and the franchise should be extended to include women.

* Another important point worth considering - The Secret Ballot Act was introduced due to the pressure from the Reformist John Bright from within the cabinet. He believed that the increased working class electorate would use their political voice to promote social reforms – but only if they could vote in secret and were free from retaliation by their bosses or landlords.

8

During his premiership, Asquith was firmly opposed to the extension of the franchise to include women. He claimed too many women were ‘ignorant of politics.

However, Asquith lent his support for women in recognition of their efforts during WW1.

Again, there is a lot of information to

digest…however you must be familiar with

the content. Please remember that your

teacher’s don’t need narrative and

descriptive accounts – we want you to argue

and make the point that changing political

views/ideologies played an important role

in the growth of democracy.

FACTOR 3 – POLITICAL ADVANTAGE

It would make sense for this paragraph to follow the last (changing political ideology) – we know there is some truth that changes in the way politicians viewed the political system helped transform British democracy. However, as most of you will be aware, the world of politics can be a murky one and there is also evidence to suggest that reform was introduced to gain political advantage.

In 1867 the Second Reform Act made changes such as the alteration of the voting qualifications, the reorganisation of the constituencies and the redistribution of which areas could elect Members of Parliament. Those reforms took Britain further along the road to democracy. Why did this happen? Why did a Conservative government pass a reform act in 1867 when it had opposed the Liberal’s own reform act (championed by Gladstone) only one year earlier? William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli will forever be remembered as two political heavyweights and are symbolic in the history of their respective parties. However, it is common knowledge that Gladstone and Disraeli detested one another. The information you are about to read will explain why.

Lord Palmerston was Liberal Prime Minister from 1859-65. When Gladstone first joined Palmerston's government in 1859, he opposed further electoral reform, but he changed his position during this time and by 1865 he was firmly in favour of enfranchising the working classes in towns – this created friction with Palmerston. In May 1864 Gladstone said that he saw no reason in principle why all mentally able men could not be enfranchised, but admitted that this would only come about once the working-classes themselves showed more interest in the subject.

Gladstone lost his Oxford seat in the 1865 General Election (July) due to his support for electoral reform (many Southern constituents were against it) but stood as an MP for South Lancashire one month later and one again resumed his place in the House of Commons. Palmerston died in October 1865 and this left Gladstone as the second most senior Liberal in the House of Commons, Lord Russell assumed the role of PM. Russell and Gladstone tried to pass a reform bill in parliament yet it did failed to even gain the full support of his own party as men like Robert Lowe criticised the bill and refused to vote in favour. Disraeli was merciless as he and other leading Conservatives picked apart the bill in the Commons and led a series of attacks Gladstone. The Liberal government resigned over the issue in June 1866, the party was in disarray and Disraeli had helped destroy the bill.

9

A cartoon from ‘Punch’ Magazine – Disraeli and Gladstone ‘slinging mud’ at one another. Heated exchanges were a regular fixture between both men in the House of Commons during the 1860s. Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over reform.

Now is the important part to consider. The Conservatives won the election later in 1866 and Disraeli (at this time Chancellor) pulled of what is considered a political masterstroke. Only months after destroying the Reform Bill suggested by Gladstone, he and his party introduced another reform bill, even more radical than Gladstone’s! Disraeli recognised political change was inevitable and wanted to promote a new era of ‘Modern Conservatism’. As architect of the new bill, Disraeli believed this was a huge opportunity for The Conservatives to appeal to over 1 million potential new voters and widen support for his party. In 1867 the Bill was passed and it was Disraeli and the Conservatives who took all the credit for the reform and improving democracy. To summarise, in 1867 the Conservative Party stole many of the Liberal’s ideas about political reform and attempted to ruin their chances of winning support from working-class men. It was political sabotage of the highest order orchestrated by Disraeli and you can strongly argue that this was a highly influential factor in the development of democracy circa1867.

Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act was passed in 1883 and this reform can also be seen as a pragmatic and practical move by the Liberals. By limiting the amount of spending on elections some Liberals believed that the advantage held by wealthier Conservative opponents would be reduced.

In the 1880s Britain was at war in South Africa and Sudan and during times of war, the government can come under pressure and historically, can lead to their downfall. There is an argument that Gladstone and the Liberals proposed reform to detract from the situation overseas and keep the British public happy by introducing further reform. Also, the Liberals considered the timing of reform…whenever there was a General Election looming they would propose reform. For example, the 1884 Third Reform Act was passed one year before the election of 1885.

Even before the 1884 Reform Act was passed, Gladstone met secretly with the Conservative Leader Salisbury. Gladstone assumed that granting the vote to skilled workers in the countryside would weaken the wealthy landowners (mostly Conservatives) and the Liberals would win more seats. For obvious reasons, the Tories were against it but Lord Salisbury realised reform was inevitable and showed great tactical skill by turning the situation to his advantage. There was a permanent Conservative majority in the House of Lords and they could have easily blocked the reform. Salisbury wanted to make an arrangement with Gladstone that would serve the interests of his party. At Arlington Street they agreed there would be a second part to the Bill of 1884. The Redistribution of Seats Act in 1885 would see a changes to constituency boundaries – 15-50,000 people – 1 MP, principle in place that in large towns 1 MP for every 50,000 people) The clear advantage was that that this created many ‘safe seats’ for Tories in the wealthier suburban areas (suburbs) – this political manoeuvring worked out nicely for Salisbury – The Conservatives comfortably won the election of 1886.

10

11

The Map of Victorian London shows inner-city London but also the ever growing suburbs – many of which became safe Conservative seats (and still are to this day) - following the Redistribution of Seats Act in 1885.

Lord Salisbury – took advantage of the 1884 Reform Act proposed by Gladstone and became PM in 1886.

Suburban areas like Kensington were full of wealthy Conservative minded voters.

FACTOR 4: PRESSURE GROUPS.

You read in the previous section that political advantage was one of the main factors behind parliamentary reform and there is overwhelming evidence to back this theory. Can the same really be said for pressure groups? Pressure groups were important throughout the 19th and early 20th century but to what extent did they influence reform? Pressure groups was the isolated factor in the 2011 exam so it is a factor the the SQA expect you to incorporate in your essay – even if you have to downplay its importance.

Reform League and Reform Union in the 1860s.

It is true that groups such as the Reform Union and Reform League, and demonstrations such as one of 100,000 people in Glasgow certainly helped persuade politicians of the need to consider reform. The historian Royden Harrison believed it was a combination of pressure groups, the growing respectability of artisans (skilled workers) and the fear of disturbances or revolution which prompted reform in the 1860s. He wrote that the working classes had reached a point where ‘it was safe to concede its enfranchisement and dangerous to withhold it.’ He believed a revolutionary spirit existed in 1860s Britain created by a trade depression, which spread unemployment and a cholera epidemic which spread fear. He also argued that the Hyde Park Riots of July 1866 and the Reform League’s campaign all pressured parliament to make change. The Hyde Park Riots in July 1866 and the fact police were unable to control demonstrators clearly startled and worried the government to the extent they banned a demonstration planned in May 1867 (although the demonstration did take place.) However…

Although the Second Reform Act was passed in 1867, one year after the Hyde Park Riots, later historians have rejected Harrison’s idea, arguing there is no evidence that parliament was forced to reform by external groups. In fact, the Reform Act created changes that went beyond what the leaders of reform groups wanted. The reform was more radical than anyone had anticipated; particularly after Disraeli helped destroy the original bill suggested by Gladstone in 1866. It is now clear that the passage of the 1867 Reform Act was more a result of cynical opportunism by the Conservatives trying to maintain their hold on power and attract new voters.

A traditional argument that the Third Reform Act in 1884 (extension of the franchise to skilled workers in the countryside) was the result of political pressure. WA Hayes wrote about ‘the critical part played by popular opinion in making the Third Reform Act’ but in reality such pressure was not significant. It is true that before the 1867, Reform large-scale organised demonstrations in support of change united middle-class and working class voters with members belonging to the Reform Union and Reform League. However, before the reform of 1884 there was little widespread popular pressure. Yes, some pressure did come from Trade Unions, the Reform League/Union and there was a public demonstration procession that took three hours to pass Parliament on 21 July 1884. By the 1880s however

12

reform campaigners used contacts within parliament or political parties to pursue their cause. In short, popular pressure had little impact on governments of the 19th century.

Trade Unions became increasingly popular as the 19th century progressed. Trade Unions had more than 1 million members by 1880, 2 million members by 1900 and 4million by 1914. This was very much a working class organisation and their growing influence and numbers worried the two main parties. Particularly the Liberals as they were traditionally seen as the party of the working class. Trade Unions were instrumental in the foundation of the Labour Representation Committee – what we know as the Labour Party today. However, at the time Labour was established as the third force in British politics by 1906 – the Liberal government was far more interested in delivering social reform and dealing with poverty – and there was no real extension of democracy until 1918 (besides the 1911 Parliament Act).

NUWSS (Suffragists) and WSPU (Suffragettes) were both important groups who propelled the debate concerning female suffrage in to the public limelight. However, more than one shadow has been cast on the argument that they were highly influential regarding reform. These groups were in operation from 1897 and 1903 respectively and whilst they were both successful in canvassing support and gaining publicity they had failed to deliver the female vote before the outbreak of war in 1914. In fact, by 1914 more than 1000 important WSPU members were in prison or hiding by 1914. Although they had the support of some MP’s their militant tactics and aggressive actions had alienated themselves from some of Britain’s more influential politicians. Lloyd George has supported the campaign for a while but this perhaps changed when the Suffragettes bombed his house in 1913. They also attacked HH Asquith and vandalised his car – hardly a wise move when Asquith was Prime Minister from 1908-16. When the war began in 1914 Mrs Pankhurst postponed all Suffragette activities and rallied women groups to unite and actively embrace the war effort. Women proved invaluable during the the Great War and their contribution to the home and western front cannot be underestimated. In short, there is a stronger argument that the war effort delivered the vote and not the Suffragist/Suffragette campaigns. According to the historian John Ray “Women proved by their work that they deserved the vote equally with men. Thus their war efforts succeeded where the Suffragette campaign failed.”

13

Did the militant Suffragette campaign do more harm than good?

The Historian John Ray is of the opinion that the war effort delivered the vote.

FACTOR 5: FOREIGN INFLUENCES

This is an important section because during both the 19th and 20th century Britain had a vast overseas Empire to protect. There was a real fear amongst politicians and industry leaders that problems at home may have had repercussions internationally.

Revolutions in 1848 – Europe was hit by a series of violent revolutions in France, Austria and some German states with threatened the overthrow the established order of government. This certainly prompted discussion in the Commons and Lords but the fact reform was not passed until 1867 – 20 years later - can we really consider this a highlt influential factor? You should still mention this…there is an opportunity counter this argument – remember, this will gain you analysis marks.

Events in the 1860s - The British government supported the Italian people in their fight for democracy against the autocracies of Austria and Naples in the War of Italian Unification 1859-61. The government also supported the victorious North and Union cause during the American Civil War. The Union were fighting to gain freedom and political rights for Blacks – questions were asked. Why would the government support the extension of democracy in Italy and America but not in Britain? John Stuart Mill (a famous philosopher and Liberal MP, in particular challenged Gladstone to draft a reform bill in light of the American Civil War. Furthermore, some British textile workers even chose to accept wage cuts rather than work with cotton picked by slaves in the USA as a sign of support for the North. Such actions and arguments convinced some politicians that the skilled working class were respectable and responsible members of society who had a ‘moral conscience’ and therefore deserved the right to vote.

Events after 1900. Perhaps a more convincing argument is the development of international democracy in the 21st century. Democracy was developing overseas before WW1 and Britain had to be seen in keeping up with international trends. As the Mother country in the British Empire there was almost a necessity to be seen as evolving with democracy and being a leader in modern democracy. Before the outbreak of war in 1914 Australia and New Zealand had already granted the vote to women. By 1914 some American states had also granted the vote to women. Many politicians, particularly by 1918 didn’t want to portray the idea the country was living in the dark ages. Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark had also granted the vote before WW1. Although Britain certainly didn’t follow the French model of democracy – French women worked just as hard during WW1 – yet there was no political thank you – French women did not gain the vote until 1944!

14

15

The American Civil War 1861-64 – the British government supported the North and United States – who wanted to promote democracy – would they be seen as hypocrites for not addressing issues over reform in their own country?

Britain was the ‘Mother country’ in the British Empire . Australia and New Zealand had already extended the Franchise to women by World War One.