CHAPTER VI

The militant movement was at this point when, in October, 1909, I made

my first visit to the United States. I shall never forget the excitement

of my landing, the first meeting with the American "reporter," an

experience dreaded by all Europeans. In fact the first few days seemed a

bewildering whirl of reporters and receptions, all leading up to my

first lecture at Carnegie Hall on October 25th. The huge hall was

entirely filled, and an enormous crowd of people thronged the streets

outside for blocks. With me on the stage were several women whom I had

met in Europe, and in the chair was an old friend, Mrs. Stanton Blatch,

whose early married life had been spent in England. The great crowd

before me, however, was made up of strangers, and I could not know how

they would respond to my story. When I rose to speak a deep hush fell,

but at my first words: "I am what you call a hooligan--" a great shout

of warm and sympathetic laughter shook the walls. Then I knew that I had

found friends in America. And this all the rest of the tour

demonstrated. In Boston the committee met me with a big grey automobile

decorated in the colours of our Union, and that night at Tremont Temple

I spoke to an audience of 2,500 people all most generous in their

responsiveness. In Baltimore professors, and students from Johns

Hopkins University acted as stewards of the meeting. I greatly enjoyed

my visit to Bryn Mawr College and to Rosemary Hall, a wonderful school

for girls in Connecticut. In Chicago, I met, among other notable people,

Miss Jane Addams and Mrs. Ella Flagg Young, superintendent of schools.

My visit to Canada will always be remembered, especially Toronto, where

the mayor, dressed in the chains of his office, welcomed me. I met too

the venerable Goldwin Smith, since dead.

Everywhere I found the Americans kind and keen, and I cannot say too

much for the wonderful hospitality they showed me. The women I found

were remarkably interested in social welfare. The work of the women's

clubs struck me very favourably, and I thought these institutions a

perfect basis for a suffrage movement. But at that time, 1909, the

suffrage movement in the United States was in a curious state of

quiescence. A large number of women with whom I came in contact appeared

to think it only just that they should have a vote, but few seemed to

realise any actual need of it. Some, it is true, were beginning to

connect the vote with the reforms for which they were working so

unselfishly and so devotedly. It was when talking with the younger women

that I came to feel that under the surface of things in America, a

strong suffrage movement was stirring. Those young women, leaving their

splendid colleges to begin life were realising in a very intelligent

fashion that they needed and would be obliged to secure for themselves a

political status.

On December 1st I sailed on the _Mauretania_ for England, and on

arriving I learned that the prison sentence which hung over me while the

petitions case had been argued, was discharged, some unknown friend

having paid my fine while I was on the ocean.

The year 1910 began with a general election, precipitated by the House

of Lords' rejection of Mr. Lloyd-George's 1909 budget. The Liberal Party

went to the country with promises of taxes on land values. They promised

also abolition of the veto power of the Lords, Irish Home Rule,

disestablishment of the Church of Wales, and other reforms. Woman

suffrage was not directly promised, but Mr. Asquith pledged that, if

retained in office, he would introduce an electoral reform bill which

could be amended to include woman suffrage. The Unionists under the

leadership of Mr. Balfour, had tariff reform for their programme, and

they offered not even a vague promise of a possible suffrage measure.

Yet we, as usual, went into the constituencies and opposed the Liberal

Party. We had no faith in Mr. Asquith's pledge, and besides, if we had

failed to oppose the party in power we should but have invited Mr.

Asquith and Mr. Balfour to enter into an agreement not to deal with the

suffrage, with the view of keeping the cause permanently outside

practical politics. We were in something of the same position as the

Irish Nationalists in 1885, when neither the Liberal nor the

Conservative leaders would include home rule in their programme. The

Irish opposed the Liberal Party, with the result that it was returned by

such a narrow majority that the Liberal Government was dependent on the

Irish vote in Parliament in order to remain in office. On this account

they were obliged to bring in a Home Rule Bill.

The other suffrage societies and many of the Liberal women begged us not

to oppose the Liberal party at this election. We were implored to waive

our claim "just this once" in view of the importance of the struggle

between the Commons and the House of Lords over the budget. We replied

that the same plea had been made in 1906 when we were implored to waive

our claim "just this once" on account of the fiscal issue. For women

there was only one political issue, we said, and that was the issue of

their own enfranchisement. The dispute between the Lords and the Commons

was far less vital than the claims of the people--represented in this

case by women--to be admitted to citizenship. From our point of view

both Houses of Parliament were unrepresentative until women had a voice

in choosing legislators and influencing law making.

We opposed Liberal candidates in forty constituencies, and in almost

every one of these the Liberal majorities were reduced and no less than

eighteen seats were wrested from the Liberal candidates. It really was a

terrible election for the Government. Mr. Asquith travelled from one

constituency to another accompanied by a body guard of detectives, and

official "chuckers out," whose sole duty was to eject women, and men as

well, who interrupted his meetings on the question of Votes for Women.

The halls where he spoke had the windows boarded up or the glass covered

with strong wire netting. Every thoroughfare leading to the halls was

barricaded, traffic was suspended, and large forces of police were on

guard. The most extraordinary precautions were taken to protect the

Prime Minister. At one place he went to his meeting strongly guarded and

by way of a secret pathway that led through gooseberry bushes and a

cabbage patch to a back door. After the meeting he escaped through the

same door and was solemnly guided along a path heavily laid with sawdust

to deaden his footsteps, to a concealed motor car, where he sat until

the crowd had all dispersed.

The other ministers had to resort to similar precautions. They lived

under the constant protection of body-guards. Their meetings were

policed in a manner without precedent. Of course no women were admitted

to their meetings, but they got in just the same. Two women hid for

twenty-five hours in the rafters of a hall in Louth where Mr.

Lloyd-George spoke. They were arrested, but not until after they had

made their demonstration. Two others hid under a platform for twenty-two

hours in order to question the Prime Minister. I could continue this

record almost indefinitely.

We had printed a wonderful poster showing the process of forcible

feeding, and we used it on hoardings everywhere. We told the electors

that the "Liberal Party," the people's friend, had imprisoned 450 women

for the crime of asking for a vote. They were torturing women at that

time in Holloway. It was splendid ammunition and it told. The Liberal

Party was returned to power, but with their majority over all sections

of the House of Commons swept away. The Asquith Government were

dependent now for their very existence on the votes of the Labour Party

and the Irish Nationalists.