We are honoured to have been given the opportunity to share a photograph of Preston Suffragette, Jane ‘Jeannie’ Jackson with the public. Peter Harris, a relative of Jeannie’s who has kindly been assisting us in our research of her has asked that we are to share a photograph of her with the public for the first time, to ‘put a face to the name’.
Her husband remembered that Jeannie could
“See and knew the conditions of some women that in those days a man could sell up the home and the wife had no control of it. She objected to things like that and that was the reason (for her joining the WSPU).”
He also said she realised that a number of women were subject to male domination and wanted to alter that.
What a woman!
Jane was an active member of the Preston Branch of the Independent Labour Party (ILP), the Clarion Club (including their Vocal Union) and she taught for the Socialist Sunday School. However, it was through her keen involvement in the ILP that she joined the fight for suffrage in Preston, becoming one of the first members of the Preston WSPU when it was newly formed in 1907. In March of that year, she was part of the Lancashire Contingent of Suffragettes that travelled, alongside many suffragettes across the country, to Parliament, where a newspaper reported that the Northern mill girls were ‘as expected, the first to show fight’. The Lancashire Contingent went in ‘shawls and clogs’, demonstrating a sense of pride and uniformity of their identity as Northern Mill Girls.
When the disturbances had completely subsided, 76 people had had their names recorded on the police books. Hundreds of people followed the ladies to the police station, treating the affair in an ‘amused sported fashion’. Jane was one of the two women arrested from Preston, Mary Burrows being the second, alongside Annie Armstrong who worked in Preston but resided in Blackpool. Jane faced two weeks imprisonment in Holloway. Peter Harris has written about the conditions that his great aunt was subjected to, detailing the experience of women in Holloway in 1907.
Upon her return from fourteen days in Holloway, Jane said the Preston WSPU had fourteen members when she had left for London, but that she hoped they were doubled now, to which she received an applause. However, soon after, conditions were made so uncomfortable for her at her place of employment that she left – she was even spat at for her involvement. She received employment at another mill, where it so happened that the tackler that she went to work under was sympathetic to the movement, as a member of the Independent Labour Party and gave her 4 looms. The manager had said to the tackler “don’t be putting all these sorts together”! It so happened that there were about 3 or 4 members of the ILP very close together working at the mill.
Beyond March 1907, Jane continued to be an active member of the Preston WSPU, and was even scouted by Edith Rigby herself to be the branch propagandist, a role she turned down. Her position as head of the household prevented this on an economic level, a reality too true for many of the working class members of Preston’s branch. Catherine Worthington, another crucial member, also reduced her involvement due to domestic commitments.
Peter has produced a short biography of Jane which we will post shortly as a separate Blog Post to avoid confusion. It deserves a post of it’s own!
We will also be writing in more detail about Jane and her activism specifically, but in the meantime, please enjoy the photograph of her below.
Copyright & Credit for Photography Courtesy of our newest member, Peter Harris!
We recently published a booklet for Heritage Open Days that discusses buildings of relevance in Preston City Centre that are connected to the women’s suffrage campaign. In it, we wrote;
During the 1911 Census, countless women across Britain staged a bold boycott and Preston was no exception. At 17 Cannon Street, above her Ladies’ Tailoring Workshop, Miss Jackson made her premises a sanctuary for women determined to evade the census. Some women who did participate went a step further, deliberately ‘spoiling’ their returns by scrawling politically charged slogans demanding the vote.
Little is known about ‘Mrs Jackson’ beyond her role in hosting this act of defiance. Intriguingly, a 1915 newspaper report mentions a Kate Jackson working at the same address could she have been Mrs Jackson herself, or perhaps her daughter? Adding another layer, a Tailoress named Kate Jackson appears in the 1901 census, living in Penwortham. The full story remains elusive, and further research is needed to uncover the connections.
The Mystery
A letter in Lancashire Archives confirms that the women hid in ‘Miss Jackson’s ladies tailoring workshop on an upper floor in Cannon Street’. However, we only had a Jane Jackson on our records as being an active suffragette in Preston. So who was Kate? As above, we did find a Tailoress in the 1901 census, however further research now tells us that this wasn’t our Kate. However, our Kate ended up being a lot closer to home than we had once imagined!
Many women joined the fight for suffrage with other female members of their family. We know this is the case in Preston, already. For example, Catherine Worthington wrote in the papers that her daughter’s grandmother was also a suffragette. What’s more, Grace Alderman initially joined the Preston WSPU branch with her mother too. It just so happens that Kate Jackson did the same. Jane Jackson’s sister, Catherine, was a dressmaker who held a workshop on Cannon Street. Much to Jane’s approval, in fact, as she had Catherine (Kate) make dresses for her out of wonderful fabrics, including cloth that had Tutankhamen drawings on. They were supposedly so outstanding that folks used to ‘stop and stare at it’.
After finding out more about Jane’s relationship with her sister through existing records, we found her sister Catherine on the census with her listed as a dressmaker over the years. We only saw this after we wrote our booklet, and came to the conclusion that this is most likely the Kate that hid the suffragettes in her workshop that evening. Even more convincingly, an WSPU meeting held in Preston in 1907 confirms that two Miss Jackson’s were present. We also know that she was a good enough dressmaker to be able to support herself with the money from the business after she moved out of the family home and had a child! Beyond the Tutankhamen dress, there are other reports of the types of clothes that she made, including coats with serrated bottoms and ‘made to size’ coats for family members.
Kate’s activism is an example of the everyday things that people did to help movements that often get lost to history. Her sister is in the newspapers because of her activity both in the Independent Labour Party and due to her arrest in 1907. However, since Kate didn’t embark on the same trip in 1907 that resulted in the arrest, and seemingly didn’t attend any ILP meetings, we couldn’t pinpoint her. Even the written testimonies in the archives that discuss the census evasion on cannon street name her as ‘miss jackson’, meaning it could be easy to assume that Jane was the person facilitating the activity. The newspaper advertisements under Kate Jackson brought us one step closer, further census records and testimonies brought us to our conclusion.
It’s always exciting when you confirm yet another Preston woman’s name and activity in this movement.
Imprisonment was not an unfortunate by-product of Preston suffragism. It was anticipated, prepared for, and oftentimes deliberately chosen. The women who went to prison from Preston did so knowing that confinement, hunger and surveillance were not incidental to the campaign for the vote, but part of how the state sought to discipline women, refusing to acknowledge them as political prisoners.
What is striking in their accounts is the detail of daily life in prison: food, names, bodies, routines.
Prison as a Chosen Risk
When Preston women travelled to London in February 1908 as part of the Women’s Parliament at Caxton Hall, arrest was expected. Following the raid on the House of Commons, several were charged at Westminster Police Court. Women had travelled from all across the country to participate. Among Preston’s ladies were Edith Rigby, Rose Towler, Grace Alderman and Elizabeth Hesmondhalgh.
Most refused fines. Prison was the point.
Mrs Hesmondhalgh’s words at the police station were recorded verbatim:
“I am now ready for another bout. I came from Lancashire for this”.
That phrase, to us, captures something essential. Prison was not an accident, it was a measure of commitment.
Beth Hesmondhalgh, original photograph can be viewed at Lancashire Archives (black and white).
Prison as a Chosen Risk
Once inside, punishment worked through the body in small, relentless ways. Catherine Worthington’s account of imprisonment is revealing precisely because it is undramatic. She recalled being given “brown bread and a thick porridge,” which she described as “anything but appetising.”
The phrase is understated, but its meaning is clear. Prison food was not designed to nourish morale. It was sufficient, dull, and deliberately uninviting. Eating it was compliance. Refusing it was resistance.
Worthington’s account shows how quickly hunger strike became thinkable. The food itself was part of the disciplinary system. Its monotony, texture, and taste reinforced the sense that prison was meant to wear women down quietly. Mrs Worthington ‘did not like the menu’, but nevertheless was very angry when she was released a few days later. She thought that if this ‘food was given for a political offence she would hunger strike while she was there’. Any amount of strike was revered and awarded in the movement. Catherine’s name, despite being in prison at the time, was read out by Emmeline Pankhurst as someone who received a medal for her commitment to the cause. It seems Catherine was awarded her medal for these two days of hunger striking due to a very unappetising menu!
Hunger Strike and Control
For many Preston women, refusal of food followed almost immediately after imprisonment. Later recollections make clear that hunger strike was collective, organised, and understood as a confrontation with state power.
Decades later, Eleanor Higginson recalled being imprisoned with nearly two hundred other women.
“We all went on a hunger strike, we did not eat a thing for nine days, not that the food was fit to eat , and then we were released.”
Again, the adequacy of nourishment available was clearly poor.
Release did not always mean freedom. Higginson was rearrested after recovering. This cycle – arrest, hunger strike, release, re-arrest – became formalised under the Cat and Mouse Act, which allowed women to be discharged when weak and taken again once strength returned.
Names, Identity, and Resistance
Control extended beyond the body to identity itself. Edith Rigby described meeting women in Holloway who deliberately used assumed names so that families could not pay fines on their behalf. One woman she encountered had “three children whose ages ranged from three to nine.” Unable to afford help, she boarded them out before entering prison.
Another woman Rigby met was a Cambridge graduate who had gone to prison under an assumed name “so that her fine would not be paid by any of her family.” The cost was personal and financial, but it was chosen.
Rigby herself recorded her experiences on “a fragile and ragged strip of tissue paper,” the only writing material she could obtain inside Holloway. Prison restricted not only movement and food, but memory. Writing became an act of resistance.
Image of Suffragettes at Holloway. Jane Short, wearing large hat, used the alias ‘Rachel Peace’.
Why Prison, Not the Crowd?
Rigby was explicit about why suffragettes increasingly chose actions that guaranteed arrest. After the events of “Black Friday,” when women were beaten in crowds and evidence suppressed, she argued that breaking windows was “a much more dignified form of protest.” It ensured instantaneous arrest and prevented abuse from taking place unseen.
Window-breaking was therefore not an escalation of violence against people. It was a strategy to control the conditions of punishment, and make it more visible to the public.
Nellie Higginson, Preston Suffragette on Black Friday. The hat she is wearing is a pink one, handmade by herself, which is still held by family members. Nellie also kept a blood stained banner from the protest, which was given to her through the movement.
Outside The Prison Walls
Prison was never allowed to be silent.
Mary Hewitt, one of the London organisers, gave a speech at a meeting held on Preston Market-place after hearing that two women in Preston Prison were being forcibly fed. Mary explicitly denounced the government’s remarks that the women were imprisoned for hooliganism, not for political offences.
Mary argued;
“That could not be said of Mrs Hesmondhalgh, of Preston, who was not in prison for hooliganism, but for resisting the police in the execution of their duty. Really, it was the police who were obstructing the women, if if their meeting had been allowed to be held there would not have been any disturbance”.
To show support, the women went to the prison to cheer the women on, by sending in megaphone messages. A friend of the cause also paid an organ grinder to play in the vicinity of Preston gaol in the hope that the strains might be heard by the imprisoned ladies.
Preston Prison, in 1935.
Remembering Prison
In later life, Preston women did not romanticise imprisonment, but neither did they regret it. Higginson remembered planning arrests months in advance, changing hats to confuse police identification, refusing to give her name, and answering every question with the same phrase:
“Votes for Women.”
Asked whether it had been worth it, she answered without hesitation:
“Worth while? Of course it was. We would never have got our votes without militancy. Men won’t give up anything easily.”
Mrs Higginson in 1960 holding a banner used by Annie Kenney at a 1905 meeting
Reflections
What emerges from Preston women’s prison accounts is endurance. Punishment worked through dull meals, enforced routines, watchful warders, and the constant threat of forcible feeding, which left many with irreversable damage. Resistance worked through refusal, preparation, solidarity, and memory.
When Catherine Worthington described prison food as “anything but appetising,” she was doing more than complaining. She was documenting how the state sought to discipline women into silence and how, even in porridge and brown bread, that discipline failed.
The story of the Women’s Social and Political Union in Preston begins not with formal offices or publicity, but with committed women, supportive allies and networks that could be relied upon. This is the bones of the beginnings, going off what we have found so far. Please note our research is ongoing.
Early Support: January–February 1907
One of the first events demonstrating alliance-building for women’s suffrage in Preston occurred on On 17th January 1907, when Mrs Pankhurst and Mrs Chadderton, two known advocates of women’s suffrage, addressed a meeting in the Acregate Lane Labour Club in Preston which was presided over by Mrs Mary Burrows. She explained that the meeting had been called due to concerns that the Preston branch of the Women’s Labour League were not supporting the cause for women’s suffrage as well as they could. This is one of the first mentions of Mrs Burrows, who was integral in the early discussions of commitment to suffrage in Preston.
Acregate Lane Labour Club Today, in Preston
It’s important to note here that prior to the formation of a Preston branch, Edith Rigby was already an active member of the wider campaign. In early 1907, while Edith Rigby was imprisoned in Holloway, the Preston ILP passed a resolution praising her “heroic stand… for conscience sake.” The Preston branch of the National Shop Assistants’ Union also passed a resolution supporting women’s enfranchisement in response to the imprisonment of Edith and other suffragettes. These actions show that early suffrage activism was backed by political and trade union groups, that Edith was active in herself.
The Labour Woman. Vol. I. No. 8, Dec., 1913, written by the Women’s Labour League
Forming the Branch: Late February–Early March
On 28 February 1907, Edith wrote to the Lancashire Evening Post to announce that a Preston branch of the WSPU would be formed “at once.” She gave Mrs Burrows’s address as a contact and noted that Annie Kenney would visit the following week to help establish the branch. She also mentioned that four other Preston women had wanted to join her in London protests but were prevented by family responsibilities. We don’t have their names in the article, as is so often the case for working women and mothers during this period. Their activism may not be remembered in writing, but its presence is clear and Edith makes sure of that.
Before the WSPU had permanent rooms in Preston, it relied on the infrastructure of other organisations. In March 1907, a large meeting at the Assembly Rooms, Public Hall featured talks from Mrs Despard and Annie Kenney, events made possible through cooperation with local groups controlling key venues.
Annie Kenney held mill-gate and marketplace meetings, targeting working women and drawing on the town’s trade-union culture to mobilise supporters.
Photograph of banner containing the names of Preston Suffragettes including Edith Rigby and Catherine Worthington- Photograph taken 18th June 1910.
Public Meetings and Launch: 6–11 March 1907
On 6 March, a crowded meeting at the Assembly Rooms, Public Hall brought together both national organisers and local women. Edith and Annie spoke on the platform alongside Mary Pass, Catherine Worthington, Rose Towler, Miss Ward, Mrs Tuson, and Miss Bailey, forming the core of the new branch’s leadership.
“Take part with us in the woman’s battle, so that it may be better, not for women only, but for our sons and daughters who come after us – so that they may be cleaner in body, bigger in heart, greater in strength and courage for what you have done” – Edith Rigby, 6th March
By 9 March, Edith told the Preston Guardian that suffrage had not yet been widely discussed in Preston, but a recent meeting had produced a strong response. She announced that the campaign would formally begin on Monday 11 March.
The official branch formation meeting was held on 11 March 1907 in the vestry of Fishergate Baptist Chapel, presided over by Mrs Alderman. We’ve found this in the newspaper archives and Grace Alderman’s letter in Lancashire Archives confirms that the branch was formed in Fishergate Baptist Church. Here, Annie Kenney outlined the plan to extend the campaign locally, and officers were appointed:
Plans were made immediately for mill-gate meetings for the remainder of the week and public demonstrations the following week, to be addressed by movement leaders.
“Meetings outside mills for the remainder of the week, and demonstrations for the week after… the subject to be discussed was what women think of the government’s action in respect to women’s enfranchisement.”
By 14 March, Annie and Edith addressed workers near Moss Shed on Kirkham Street, by which time Edith was publicly referred to as the branch secretary.
By 21 March, Mary Burrows alongside other members Preston women such as Jennie Jackson were arrested for their activism.
Photographs of Rose Towler and Grace Alderman, Lancashire Archives. Miss G Alderman, Literature Secretary, pictured left. Her mother was the Chair upon formation.
Using Local Networks: Rooms and Trade Union Support
Grace Alderman’s letter in the Lancashire Archives states that the first committee meeting of Preston’s WSPU took place in the dentist’s reception room, “in the flat Mr and Mrs Pass occupied over the Boots Shoe Shop.” Census records confirm that the Pass family lived above the shop, with Mr Pass listed as the manager. Newspaper reports also place Mrs Pass at 115 Fishergate when advertising on behalf of Votes for Women, while other notices identify Tyler’s Bootshop at the same address – establishing 115 Fishergate as the precise location.
Mr Pass supported women’s suffrage and even attended meetings for male sympathisers at the Meeting Rooms. Their daughter Jessie became involved as a teenager, appearing in events organised with the Preston Shop Assistants’ Sketch Company, as reported in the Preston Herald. The Bootshop’s story highlights collaboration across groups with shared aims. By allowing the WSPU to hold its first meetings on their premises, and through their links with the Shop Assistants’ Union, it seems likely the Pass family were instrumental in securing the permanent offices at 41 Glover’s Court above the Union offices.
April 1907, Fundraising Event held at the Weavers Hall.
“The first meeting was held above the shoe shop… permanent rooms were found at 41 Glovers Court thanks to existing trade union connections.”
These arrangements reflect the crucial support of trade unions, which provided venues, legitimacy, and fundraising opportunities.
Tensions and Challenges
Relations with the Women’s Labour League were sometimes strained. Edith later resigned from the WLL’s annual meeting, disappointed by the lack of support from Labour-aligned members, even though many committee members were ILP-affiliated. Indeed, the Independent Labour Party (ILP) was a group many of the suffragettes were a part of, and it was at one of their meetings in 1907 where Edith Rigby recruited Beth Hesmondhalgh, one of Preston’s most active suffragettes.
She declared her intention to join “the band of women willing to work for the vote,” focusing her energies on the WSPU branch. In contrast, trade unions consistently supported the Preston WSPU, which Edith affirmed in newspaper articles. They assisted by providing practical help, venues, and connections that were essential for the branch’s survival and growth.
Early Achievements and Recognition
By June 1907, The Women’s Franchise noted the energy of the Preston branch. In just over three months, it had held weekly meetings and eleven public gatherings, demonstrating that even a newly formed branch could become a hub of local activism. Correspondence from around this time also names Edith Rigby the honorary secretary of both the Preston branch and the Lancashire Committee, confirming her central role in coordinating suffrage activity across the region. (Women’s Franchise, 27 June 1907)
“Even a newly formed branch could become a hub of local suffrage activism.”
Alliances Built the Movement
The early success of the Preston WSPU relied on alliances, organisation, and local initiative. Support from the ILP, trade unions, national organisers, and committed local women allowed the branch to flourish, even before it had permanent rooms or formal infrastructure. Some of the names we see in these formative stages do not prop up again, others remain in records consistently right up until the First World War. It is no surprise that such a highly industrialised town like Preston would be so connected and ready to mobilise, Annie Kenney saw this potential and spoke at as many mills as she could. These meetings often led to arrests, which sometimes even led to unemployment for women who wanted to take part. Such sacrifices continue to define the Preston WSPU and the tenacity of all who helped the cause.
Photograph: Nellie Higginson, Preston WSPU Member holding Banner used by Annie Kenney at 1905 meeting.
At one of our research events, we noticed a newspaper clipping of Preston Suffragette ‘Catherine Worthington’ depicted her wearing a Holloway Brooch. Despite our efforts, we hadn’t found any evidence of Catherine being imprisoned or having hunger-striked up until that moment. Surely they wouldn’t draw a brooch onto an image if it wasn’t on the existing photograph they copied from? Surely this had to be pointing us somewhere? Well, it was.
London Daily Chronicle – Friday 10 November 1911 – ‘Kate Worthington’ proudly wearing a Holloway Brooch (etching from a real photograph).
Catherine deserves her own blog post about her life, which we will certainly get to! However, in the meantime, this is the story of how we found that Catherine was awarded a Holloway Brooch, although she was still in prison at the time, along with other fellow Preston WSPU women, when Emmeline Pankhurst awarded the brooches to women who had been imprisoned and force-fed and women who were still imprisoned facing the torturous methods of force-feeding.
Catherine Worthington and Preston’s Voice at the Royal Albert Hall
On 9 December 1909, the grand Royal Albert Hall in London became the stage for one of the most significant gatherings of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). The purpose was to welcome back Emmeline Pankhurst from her American lecture tour, but the meeting was far more than a ceremonial homecoming. It was a public declaration of the movement’s resilience, a showcase of its national reach, and a celebration of women who had endured imprisonment and hunger strikes for the cause of suffrage.
Among the many names and speeches celebrated that night, one local woman from Preston stands out as the last name on the list: Catherine Worthington, whose courage links the streets of Lancashire to the grand stage of London.
A suffragette meeting, with WSPU leaders including Emmeline Pankhurst, at Caxton Hall, June 1909
The Night of Ceremony and Defiance
The Royal Albert Hall glittered with the WSPU’s colours of purple, white, and green, and the famous banner reading “No Surrender” loomed over the stage. Organ music filled the hall, speeches were delivered by Emmeline Pankhurst, Christabel Pankhurst (who Catherine’s daughter is named after and met), and Mary Leigh, and the program culminated with the presentation of Hunger Strike Medals “For Valour” to women who had suffered for the movement.
These medals were more than awards. They were public recognition and commemoration of sacrifice, signalling that imprisonment, hunger strikes, and even force-feeding were acts of courage worthy of national acknowledgment. Such an event mirrors the causes advocacy for martyrdom. For the women of Preston, this was a direct connection between their local activism and the national movement.
Dame Christabel Pankhurst, by Ethel Wright oil on canvas, exhibited 1909
Catherine Worthington’s Place in History
Catherine Worthington’s name appears on the official programme among the women being honoured. Other women from Preston also do, who we didn’t know had underwent force-feeding before seeing this document. In Catherine’s case, and her colleague Beth Hesmondhalgh, a small but telling notation “still in prison” marks her as absent from the ceremony because she was still serving a sentence for her activism in Preston. They were both arrested during protests in early December 1909.
While the London audience applauded, Catherine remained in her cell, recognised in absentia. Her inclusion demonstrates the WSPU’s commitment to acknowledging every woman who had sacrificed for the cause, not only the most famous leaders.
Though little is known of many of the women from Preston included, their presence on the medal list places them directly on the national stage. The programme immortalises their courage and links Preston to one of the movement’s most symbolic moments.
Why Catherine’s Story Matters
Catherine’s story reminds us that the suffrage movement was not just about the leaders or the London rallies; it was sustained by local women, often working-class, whose bravery went largely unrecorded in daily newspapers. Her recognition at the Royal Albert Hall highlights:
The local-national connection: Activism in towns (or cities, whichever way you prefer) like Preston directly fed into national campaigns.
Recognition of sacrifice: Even while imprisoned, Catherine’s actions were publicly celebrated.
The courage of ordinary women: Her story tells of the risks countless women took to demand political equality.
By focusing on Catherine Worthington, we see the Royal Albert Hall meeting not just as a ceremonial event, but as a tangible link between a grand national stage and the small towns whose women fuelled the movement!
This find has led us to our next chapter – we are visiting London to find out more about Catherine’s time in prison, along with other members of the Preston WSPU mentioned on that night. Stay tuned, we will post something on the 9th December to commemorate ALL of the Preston women involved.
Hello and welcome to the official blog of the Friends of Edith RigbyCIC!
We are a group committed to uncovering, celebrating, and sharing the stories of the remarkable women who formed the Preston branch of the Women’s Social and Political Union.
Although our name honours Edith Rigby, one of the movement’s most recognisable figures, our purpose reaches far beyond any single individual. Preston’s suffrage history was shaped by a network of women whose determination deserves to be remembered. From well-known organisers to the lesser-documented mill workers, marchers, fundraisers, and imprisoned protesters, each woman (and man!) played a vital role in the fight for votes for women.
In this blog, we’ll be exploring those stories, not solely of their militancy, but also the everyday activism, community organising, and personal sacrifices that defined the local suffrage movement. We’ll share new research, highlight archival discoveries, revisit key events, and shine a light on the many Preston women whose names and contributions have too often been overlooked.
Whether you’re a dedicated researcher, a casual reader, or someone discovering Preston’s WSPU for the first time, we’re delighted you’re here. Together, we can ensure that every woman who stood for equality: loudly or quietly, publicly or privately, has her story told.
Friends of Edith Rigby 
