CHAPTER VII

The first months of 1910 were occupied by the re-elected Government in a

struggle to keep control of affairs. A coalition with the Irish party,

the leaders of which agreed, if the Home Rule bill were advanced, to

stand by the budget. No publicly announced coalition with the Labour

Party was made at that time, Keir Hardie, at the annual conference of

the party, announcing that they would continue to be independent of the

Government. This was important to us because it meant that the Labour

Party, instead of entering into an agreement to give general support to

all Government measures, would be free to oppose the Government in the

event of the continued withholding of a franchise bill. Other things

combined to make us hopeful that the tide had turned in our favour. It

was hinted to us that the Government were weary of our opposition and

were ready to end the struggle in the only possible way, providing they

could do so without appearing to yield to coercion. We therefore, early

in February, declared a truce to all militancy.

Parliament met on February 15th and the King's speech was read on

February 21st. No mention of women's suffrage was made in the speech nor

was any private member successful in winning a place in the ballot for a

suffrage bill. However, since the situation, on account of the proposed

abolition of the Lord's power of veto, was strained and abnormal, we

decided to wait patiently for a while. It was confidently expected that

another general election would have to be held before the contentions

between the two Houses of Parliament were settled, and this event

unquestionably would have occurred, not later than June, but for the

unexpected death of King Edward VII. This interrupted the strained

situation. The passing of the King served as an occasion for the

temporary softening of animosities and produced a general disposition to

compromise on all troubled issues. The question of women's

enfranchisement was taken up again in this spirit, and in a manner

altogether creditable to the members with whom the movement originated.

A strictly non-party committee on women's suffrage had been established

in the House of Commons in 1887, mainly through the efforts of Miss

Lydia Becker, whom I have mentioned before as the Susan B. Anthony of

the English suffrage movement. In 1906, for reasons not necessary to

enumerate, the original committee had been allowed to lapse, the Liberal

supporters of women's suffrage forming a committee of their own. Now, in

this period of good feeling, at the suggestion of certain members, led

by Mr. H. N. Brailsford, not himself a member of Parliament, formed

another non-party body which they called the Conciliation Committee. Its

object was declared to be the bringing together of the full strength of

suffragists of the House of Commons, regardless of party affiliation,

and of framing a suffrage measure that could be passed by their united

effort. The Earl of Lytton accepted the chairmanship of the committee

and Mr. Brailsford was made its secretary. The committee consisted of

twenty-five Liberals, seventeen Conservatives, six Irish Nationalists,

and six members of the Labour Party. Under difficulties which I can

hardly hope to make clear to American readers the committee laboured to

frame a bill which should win the support of all sections of the House.

The Conservatives insisted on a moderate bill, whilst the Liberals were

concerned lest the terms of the bill should add to the power of the

propertied classes. The original suffrage bill, drafted by my husband.

Dr. Pankhurst, giving the vote to women on equal terms with men, was

abandoned, and a bill was drawn up along the lines of the existing

municipal franchise law. The basis of the municipal franchise is

occupation, and the Conciliation Bill, as first drafted, proposed to

extend the Parliamentary vote to women householders, and to women

occupiers of business premises paying ten pounds rental and upwards. It

was estimated that about ninety-five per cent. of the women who would be

enfranchised under the bill were householders. This, in England, does

not mean a person occupying a whole house. Any one who inhabits even a

single room over which he or she exercises full control is a

householder.

The text of the Conciliation Bill was submitted to all the suffrage

societies and other women's organisations, and it was accepted by every

one of them. Our official newspaper said editorially: "We of the Women's

Social and Political Union are prepared to share in this united and

peaceful action. The new bill does not give us all that we want, but we

are for it if others are also for it."

It seemed certain that an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons

were for the bill, and were prepared to vote it into law. Although we

knew that it could not possibly pass unless the Government agreed that

it should, we hoped that the leaders of all parties and the majority of

their followers would unite in an agreement that the bill should pass.

This settlement by consent is rare in the English Parliament, but some

extremely important and hard fought measures have been carried thus. The

extension of the franchise in 1867 is a case in point.

The Conciliation Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on June

14th, 1910, by Mr. D. J. Shackleton, and was received with the most

extraordinary enthusiasm. The newspapers remarked on the feeling of

reality which marked the attitude of the House towards the bill. It was

plain that the members realised that here was no academic question upon

which they were merely to debate and to register their opinions, but a

measure which was intended to be carried through all its stages and to

be written into English law. The enthusiasm of the House swept all over

the Kingdom. The medical profession sent in a memorial in its favour,

signed by more than three hundred of the most distinguished men and

women in the profession. Memorials from writers, clergymen, social

workers, artists, actors, musicians, were also sent. The Women's Liberal

Federation met and unanimously resolved to ask the Prime Minister to

give full facilities to the bill. Some advanced spirits in the

Federation actually proposed to send then and there a deputation to the

House of Commons with the resolution, but this proposal was rejected as

savouring too much of militancy. A request for an interview was sent to

Mr. Asquith, and he replied promising to receive, at an early day,

representatives of both the Liberal Women's Federation and of the

National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies.

The joint deputation was received by Mr. Asquith on June 21st, and Lady

M'Laren, as a representative of the Women's Liberal Federation, spoke

very directly to her party's leader. She said in part: "If you refuse

our request we shall have to go to the country and say you, who are

against the veto of the House of Lords, are placing a veto on the House

of Commons by refusing to allow a second reading of this bill."

Mr. Asquith replied warily that he could not decide alone on such a

serious matter, but would have to consult his Cabinet, the majority of

whom, he admitted, were suffragists. Their decision, he said, would be

given in the House of Commons.

[Illustration: OVER 1,000 WOMEN HAD BEEN IN PRISON--BROAD ARROWS IN THE

1910 PARADE]

The Women's Social and Political Union arranged a demonstration in

support of the Conciliation Bill, the greatest that had, up to that

time, been made. It was a national, indeed an inter-national affair in

which all the suffrage groups took part, and its massed ranks were so

great that the procession required an hour and a half to pass a given

point. At the head marched six hundred and seventeen women, white clad

and holding long silver staves tipped with the broad arrow. These were

the women who had suffered imprisonment for the cause, and all along the

line of march they received a tribute of cheers from the public. The

immense Albert Hall, the largest hall in England, although it was packed

from orchestra to the highest gallery, was not large enough to hold all

the marchers. Amid great joy and enthusiasm Lord Lytton delivered a

stirring address in which he confidently predicted the speedy advance of

the bill. The women, he declared, had every reason to believe that their

enfranchisement was actually at hand.

It was true that the time for passing a suffrage bill was ripe. Not in

fifty years had the way been so clear, because the momentary absence of

ordinary legislation left the field open for an electoral reform bill.

Yet when the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons whether he

would give the members an early opportunity for discussion, the answer

was not encouraging. The Government, said Mr. Asquith, were prepared to

give time before the close of the session for full debate and division

on second reading, but they could not allow any further facilities. He

stated frankly that he personally did not want the bill to pass, but the

Government realised that the House of Commons ought to have an

opportunity, if that was their deliberate desire, for effectively

dealing with the whole question.

This cryptic utterance was taken by the majority of the suffragists, by

the press and by the public generally to mean that the Government were

preparing gracefully to yield to the undoubted desire of the House of

Commons to pass the bill. But the Women's Social and Political Union

were doubtful. Mr. Asquith's remark was ambiguous, and was capable of

being interpreted in several ways. It could mean that he was prepared to

accept the verdict of the majority and let the bill pass through all its

stages. That of course would be the only way to allow the House

opportunity effectively to deal with the whole question. On the other

hand Mr. Asquith might be intending to let the bill pass through its

debating stages and be afterwards smothered in committee. We feared

treachery, but in view of the announcement that the Government had set

apart July 11 and 12 for debate on the second reading, we preserved a

spirit of waiting calm. July 26th had been fixed as the day for the

adjournment of Parliament, and if the bill was voted on favourably on

the 12th there would be ample time to take it through its final stages.

When a bill passes its second reading it is normally sent upstairs to a

Grand Committee which sits while the House of Commons is transacting

other business, and thus the committee stage can proceed without special

facilities. The bill does not go back to the House until the report

stage is reached, at which time the third and last reading occurs. After

that the bill goes to the House of Lords. A week at most is all that is

required for this procedure. A bill may be referred to the Whole House,

and in this case it cannot be brought up for its committee stage unless

it is given special facilities. In our paper and in many public

speeches we urged that the members vote to send the bill to a Grand

Committee.

Some days before the bill reached its second reading it was rumoured

that Mr. Lloyd-George was going to speak against it, but we refused to

credit this. Unfair to women as Mr. Lloyd-George had shown himself in

various ways, he had consistently posed as a staunch friend of women's

suffrage, and we could not believe that he would turn against us at the

eleventh hour. Mr. Winston Churchill, whose speech to the women of

Dundee I quoted in a previous chapter, the promoters of the Bill also

counted upon, as it was known that he had more than once expressed

sympathy with its objects. But when the debates began we found both of

these ardent suffragists arrayed against the bill. Mr. Churchill, after

making a conventional anti-suffrage speech, in which he said that women

did not need the ballot, and that they really had no grievances,

attacked the Conciliation Bill because the class of women who would be

enfranchised under it did not suit him. Some women, he conceded, ought

to be enfranchised, and he thought the best plan would be to select

"some of the best women of all classes" on considerations of property,

education and earning capacity. These special franchises would be

carefully balanced, "so as not on the whole to give undue advantage to

the property vote against the wage earning vote." A more fantastic

proposal and one less likely to find favour in the House of Commons

could not possibly be imagined. Mr. Churchill's second objection to the

bill was that it was anti-democratic! It seemed to us that anything was

more democratic than his proposed "fancy" franchises.

Mr. Lloyd-George said that he agreed with everything Mr. Churchill had

said "both relevant and irrelevant." He made the amazing assertion that

the Conciliation Committee that had drafted the bill was a "committee of

women meeting outside the House." And that this committee said to the

House of Commons not only that they must vote for a women's suffrage

bill but "You must vote for the particular form upon which we agree, and

we will not even allow you to deliberate upon any other form."

Of course these statements were wholly false. The Conciliation Bill was

drafted by men, and it was introduced because the Government had refused

to bring in a party measure. The suffragists would have been only too

glad to have had the Government deliberate on a broader form of

suffrage. Because they refused to deliberate on any form, this private

bill was introduced.

This fact was brought forward in the course of Mr. Lloyd-George's

speech. It had been urged, said he, that this bill was better than none

at all, but why should that be the alternative? "What is the other?"

called out a member, but Mr. Lloyd-George dodged the question with a

careless "Well, I cannot say for the present."

Later on he said: "If the promoters of this bill say that they regard

the second reading merely as an affirmation of the principle of women's

suffrage, and if they promise that when they re-introduce the bill it

will be in a form which will enable the House of Commons to move any

amendment either for restriction or extension I shall be happy to vote

for this bill."

Mr. Philip Snowden, replying to this, said: "We will withdraw this bill

if the Right Honourable gentleman, on behalf of the Government, or the

Prime Minister himself will undertake to give to this House the

opportunity of discussing and carrying through its various stages

another form of franchise bill. If we cannot get that, then we shall

prosecute this bill."

The Government made no reply at all to this, and the debate proceeded.

Thirty-nine speeches were made, the Prime Minister showing plainly in

his speech that he intended to use all his power to prevent the bill

becoming law. He began by saying that a franchise measure ought never to

be sent to a Grand Committee, but to one of the Whole House. He said

also that his conditions, that the majority of women should show beyond

any doubt that they desired the franchise, and that the bill be

democratic in its terms, had not been complied with.

When the division was taken it was seen that the Conciliation Bill had

passed its second reading by a majority of 109, a larger majority than

the Government's far famed budget or the House of Lords Resolution had

received. In fact no measure during that Parliament had received so

great a majority--299 members voted for it as against 190 opposed. Then

the question arose as to which committee should deal with the bill. Mr.

Asquith had said that all franchise bills should go to a Committee of

the Whole House, so that in the division his words moved many sincere

friends of the bill to send it there. Others understood that this was a

mischievous course, but were afraid of incurring the anger of the Prime

Minister. Of course all the anti-suffragists voted the same way, and

thus the bill went to the Whole House.

Even then the bill could have been advanced to its final reading. The

House had time on their hands, as virtually all important legislative

work was halted because of the deadlock between the Lords and the

Commons. Following the death of the King a conference of leaders of the

Conservative and the Liberal Parties had been arranged to adjust the

matters at issue, and this conference had not yet reported. Hence

Parliament had little business on hand. The strongest possible pressure

was brought to bear upon the Government to give facilities to the

Conciliation Bill. A number of meetings were held in support of the

bill. The Men's Political Union for Women's Enfranchisement, the Men's

League for Women's Suffrage and the Conciliation Committee held a joint

meeting in Hyde Park. Some of the old school of suffragists held another

large meeting in Trafalgar Square. The Women's Social and Political

Union, on July 23rd, which was the anniversary of the day in 1867 on

which working men, agitating for their vote, had pulled down the Hyde

Park railings, held another enormous demonstration there. A space of

half a square mile was cleared, forty platforms erected, and two great

processions marched from east and west to the meeting. Many other

suffrage societies co-operated with us on this occasion. On the very

day of that meeting Mr. Asquith wrote to Lord Lytton refusing to allow

any more time for the bill during that session.

Those who still had faith that the Government could be induced to do

justice to women set their hopes on the autumn session of Parliament.

Resolutions urging the Government to give the bill facilities during the

autumn were sent, not only by the suffrage associations but from many

organisations of men. The Corporations of thirty-eight cities, including

Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Dublin and Cork, sent resolutions to

this effect. Cabinet Ministers were besieged with requests to receive

deputations of women, and since the country was on the verge of a

general election, and the Liberal Party wanted the services of women,

their requests could not altogether be ignored. Mr. Asquith, early in

October, received a deputation of women from his own constituency of

East Fife, but all he had to tell them was that the bill could not be

advanced that year. "What about next year?" They asked, and he replied

shortly: "Wait and see."

It had been exceedingly difficult, during these troublous days, to hold

all the members of the W. S. P. U. to the truce, and when it became

perfectly apparent that the Conciliation Bill was doomed, war was again

declared. At a great meeting held in Albert Hall on November 10th, I

myself threw down the gage of battle. I said, because I wanted the whole

matter to be clearly understood by the public as well as by our members:

"This is the last constitutional effort of the Women's Social and

Political Union to secure the passage of the bill into law. If the Bill,

in spite of our efforts, is killed by the Government, then first of all,

I have to say there is an end of the truce. If we are met by the

statement that there is no power to secure on the floor of the House of

Commons time for our measure, then our first step is to say, 'We take it

out of your hands, since you fail to help us, and we resume the

direction of the campaign ourselves.'"

Another deputation, I declared, must go to the House of Commons to carry

a petition to the Prime Minister. I myself would lead, and if no one

cared to follow me I would go alone. Instantly, all over the hall, women

sprang to their feet crying out, "Mrs. Pankhurst, I will go with you!"

"I will go!" "I will go!" And I knew that our brave women were as ever

ready to give themselves, their very lives, if need be, for the cause of

freedom.

The autumn session convened on Friday, November 18th, and Mr. Asquith

announced that Parliament would be adjourned on November 28th. While his

speech was in progress, 450 women, in small groups, to keep within the

strict letter of the law, were marching from Caxton Hall and from the

headquarters of the Union.

[Illustration: THE HEAD OF THE DEPUTATION ON BLACK FRIDAY

_November, 1910_]

How to tell the story of that dreadful day, Black Friday, as it lives in

our memory--how to describe what happened to English women at the behest

of an English Government, is a difficult task. I will try to tell it as

simply and as accurately as possible. The plain facts, baldly stated, I

am aware will strain credulity.

Remember that the country was on the eve of a general election, and that

the Liberal Party needed the help of Liberal women. This fact made the

wholesale arrest and imprisonment of great numbers of women, who were

demanding the passage of the Conciliation Bill, extremely undesirable

from the Government's point of view. The Women's Liberal Federations

also wanted the passage of the Conciliation Bill, although they were not

ready to fight for it. What the Government feared, was that the Liberal

women would be stirred by our sufferings into refraining from doing

election work for the party. So the Government conceived a plan whereby

the Suffragettes were to be punished, were to be turned back and

defeated in their purpose of reaching the House, but would not be

arrested. Orders were evidently given that the police were to be present

in the streets, and that the women were to be thrown from one uniformed

or ununiformed policeman to another, that they were to be so rudely

treated that sheer terror would cause them to turn back. I say orders

were given and as one proof of this I can first point out that on all

previous occasions the police had first tried to turn back the

deputations and when the women persisted in going forward, had arrested

them. At times individual policemen had behaved with cruelty and malice

toward us, but never anything like the unanimous and wholesale brutality

that was shown on Black Friday.

The Government very likely hoped that the violence of the police

towards the women would be emulated by the crowds, but instead the

crowds proved remarkably friendly. They pushed and struggled to make a

clear pathway for us, and in spite of the efforts of the police my small

deputation actually succeeded in reaching the door of the Strangers'

Entrance. We mounted the steps to the enthusiastic cheers of the

multitudes that filled the streets, and we stood there for hours gazing

down on a scene which I hope never to look upon again.

At intervals of two or three minutes small groups of women appeared in

the square, trying to join us at the Strangers' Entrance. They carried

little banners inscribed with various mottoes, "Asquith Has Vetoed Our

Bill," "Where There's a Bill There's a Way," "Women's Will Beats

Asquith's Won't," and the like. These banners the police seized and tore

in pieces. Then they laid hands on the women and literally threw them

from one man to another. Some of the police used their fists, striking

the women in their faces, their breasts, their shoulders. One woman I

saw thrown down with violence three or four times in rapid succession,

until at last she lay only half conscious against the curb, and in a

serious condition was carried away by kindly strangers. Every moment the

struggle grew fiercer, as more and more women arrived on the scene.

Women, many of them eminent in art, in medicine and science, women of

European reputation, subjected to treatment that would not have been

meted out to criminals, and all for the offence of insisting upon the

right of peaceful petition.

[Illustration: FOR HOURS SCENES LIKE THIS WERE ENACTED ON BLACK FRIDAY

_November, 1910_]

This struggle lasted for about an hour, more and more women successfully

pushing their way past the police and gaining the steps of the House.

Then the mounted police were summoned to turn the women back. But,

desperately determined, the women, fearing not the hoofs of the horses

or the crushing violence of the police, did not swerve from their

purpose. And now the crowds began to murmur. People began to demand why

the women were being knocked about; why, if they were breaking the law,

they were not arrested; why, if they were not breaking the law, they

were not permitted to go on unmolested. For a long time, nearly five

hours, the police continued to hustle and beat the women, the crowds

becoming more and more turbulent in their defence. Then, at last the

police were obliged to make arrests. One hundred and fifteen women and

four men, most of them bruised and choked and otherwise injured, were

arrested.

While all this was going on outside the House of Commons, the Prime

Minister was obstinately refusing to listen to the counsels of some of

the saner and more justice-loving members of the House. Keir Hardie, Sir

Alfred Mondell and others urged Mr. Asquith to receive the deputation,

and Lord Castlereagh went so far as to move as an amendment to a

Government proposal, another proposal which would have compelled the

Government to provide immediate facilities to the Conciliation Bill. We

heard of what was going on, and I sent in for one and another friendly

member and made every possible effort to influence them in favour of

Lord Castlereagh's amendment. I pointed to the brutal struggle that was

going on in the square, and I begged them to go back and tell the others

that it must be stopped. But, distressed as some of them undoubtedly

were, they assured me that there was not the slightest chance for the

amendment.

"Is there not a single _man_ in the House of Commons," I cried, "one who

will stand up for us, who will make the House see that the amendment

must go forward?"

Well, perhaps there were men there, but all save fifty-two put their

party loyalty before their manhood, and, because Lord Castlereagh's

proposal would have meant censure of the Government, they refused to

support it. This did not happen, however, until Mr. Asquith had resorted

to his usual crafty device of a promise of future action. In this

instance he promised to make a statement on behalf of the Government on

the following Tuesday.

The next morning the suffrage prisoners were arraigned in police court.

Or rather, they were kept waiting outside the court room while Mr.

Muskett, who prosecuted on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Police,

explained to the astounded magistrate that he had received orders from

the Home Secretary that the prisoners should all be discharged. Mr.

Churchill it was declared, had had the matter under careful

consideration, and had decided that "no public advantage would be gained

by proceeding with the prosecution, and accordingly no evidence would

be given against the prisoners."

Subdued laughter and, according to the newspapers, some contemptuous

booing were raised in the court, and when order was restored the

prisoners were brought in in batches and told that they were discharged.

On the following Tuesday the W. S. P. U. held another meeting of the

Women's Parliament in Caxton Hall to hear the news from the House of

Commons. Mr. Asquith said: "The Government will, if they are still in

power, give facilities in the next Parliament for effectively proceeding

with a franchise bill which is so framed as to admit of free amendment."

He would not promise that this would be done during the first year of

Parliament.

We had demanded facilities for the Conciliation Bill, and Mr. Asquith's

promise was too vague and too ambiguous to please us. The Parliament now

about to be dissolved had lasted a scant ten months. The next one might

not last longer. Therefore, Mr. Asquith's promise, as usual, meant

nothing at all. I said to the women, "I am going to Downing Street. Come

along, all of you." And we went.

We found a small force of police in Downing Street, and we easily broke

through their line and would have invaded the Prime Minister's residence

had not reinforcements of police arrived on the scene. Mr. Asquith

himself appeared unexpectedly, and as we thought, very opportunely.

Before he could have realised what was happening he found himself

surrounded by angry Suffragettes. He was well hooted and, it is said,

well shaken, before he was rescued by the police. As his taxicab rushed

away some object struck one of the windows, smashing it.

Another Cabinet Minister, Mr. Birrell, unwittingly got into the midst of

the melee, and I am obliged to record that he was pretty thoroughly

hustled. But it is not true that his leg was injured by the women. His

haste to jump into a taxicab resulted in a slightly sprained ankle.

That night and the following day windows were broken in the houses of

Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Lewis Harcourt and Mr. John

Burns; and also in the official residences of the Premier and the

Chancellor of the Exchequer.

That week 160 Suffragettes were arrested, but all except those charged

with window-breaking or assault were discharged. This amazing court

action established two things: First, that when the Home Secretary

stated that he had no responsibility for the prosecution and sentencing

of Suffrage prisoners, he told a colossal falsehood; and second, that

the Government fully realised that it was bad election tactics to be

responsible for the imprisonment of women of good character who were

struggling for citizenship.