CHAPTER VIII

Almost immediately after the events chronicled in the preceding chapter

I sailed for my second tour through the United States. I was delighted

to find a thoroughly alive and progressive suffrage movement, where

before had existed with most people only an academic theory in favour of

equal political rights between men and women. My first meeting, held in

Brooklyn, was advertised by sandwich women walking through the principal

streets of the city, quite like our militant suffragists at home. Street

meetings, I found, were now daily occurrences in New York. The Women's

Political Union had adopted an election policy, and throughout the

country as far west as I travelled, I found women awakened to the

necessity of political action instead of mere discussion of suffrage.

My second visit to America, like my first one, is clouded in my memory

with sorrow. Very soon after my return to England a beloved sister, Mrs.

Mary Clarke died. My sister, who was a most ardent suffragist and a

valued worker in the Women's Social and Political Union, was one of the

women who was shockingly maltreated in Parliament Square on Black

Friday. She was also one of the women who, a few days later, registered

their protest against the Government by throwing a stone through the

window of an official residence. For this act she was sent to Holloway

prison for a term of one month. Released on December 21st, it was plain

to those who knew her best that her health had suffered seriously from

the dreadful experience of Black Friday and the after experience of

prison. She died suddenly on Christmas day, to the profound sorrow of

all her associates. Hers was not the only life that was sacrificed as a

result of that day. Other deaths occurred, mostly from hearts weakened

by overstrain. Miss Henria Williams died on January 2nd, 1911, from

heart failure. Miss Cecelia Wolseley Haig was another victim. Ill

treatment on Black Friday resulted in her case in a painful illness

which ended, after a year of intense suffering, in her death on December

21st, 1911.

It is not possible to publish a full list of all the women who have died

or have been injured for life in the course of the suffrage agitation in

England. In many cases the details have never been made public, and I do

not feel at liberty to record them here. A very celebrated case, which

is public property, is that of Lady Constance Lytton, sister of the Earl

of Lytton, who acted as chairman of the Conciliation Committee. Lady

Constance had twice in 1909 gone to prison as a result of suffrage

activities, and on both occasions had been given special privileges on

account of her rank and family influence. In spite of her protests and

her earnest pleadings to be accorded the same treatment as other

suffrage prisoners, the snobbish and cowardly authorities insisted in

retaining Lady Constance in the hospital cells and discharging her

before the expiration of her sentence. This was done on a plea of her

ill health, and it was true that she suffered from a valvular disease of

the heart.

[Illustration: RIOT SCENES ON BLACK FRIDAY

_November, 1910_]

Smarting under the sense of the injustice done her comrades in this

discrimination, Lady Constance Lytton did one of the most heroic deeds

to be recorded in the history of the suffrage movement. She cut off her

beautiful hair and otherwise disguised herself, put on cheap and ugly

clothing, and as "Jane Warton" took part in a demonstration at

Newcastle, again suffering arrest and imprisonment. This time the

authorities treated her as an ordinary prisoner. Without testing her

heart or otherwise giving her an adequate medical examination, they

subjected her to the horrors of forcible feeding. Owing to her fragile

constitution she suffered frightful nausea each time, and when on one

occasion the doctor's clothing was soiled, he struck her contemptuously

on the cheek. This treatment was continued until the identity of the

prisoner suddenly became known. She was, of course, immediately

released, but she never recovered from the experience, and is now a

hopeless invalid.[2]

I want to say right here, that those well-meaning friends on the outside

who say that we have suffered these horrors of prison, of hunger strikes

and forcible feeding, because we desired to martyrise ourselves for the

cause, are absolutely and entirely mistaken. We never went to prison in

order to be martyrs. We went there in order that we might obtain the

rights of citizenship. We were willing to break laws that we might force

men to give us the right to make laws. That is the way men have earned

their citizenship. Truly says Mazzini that the way to reform has always

led through prison.

The result of the general election, which took place in January, 1911,

was that the Liberal Party was again returned to power. Parliament met

on January 31st, but the session formally opened on February 6th with

the reading of the King's speech. The programme for the session included

the Lords' veto measure, Home Rule, payment for members of Parliament,

and the abolishment of plural voting. Invalid insurance was also

mentioned and certain amendments to the old age pension bill. Women's

suffrage was not mentioned. Nevertheless, we were singularly lucky, the

first three places in the ballot being secured by members of the

Conciliation Committee. Mr. Philips, an Irish member, drew the first

place, but as the Irish party had decided not to introduce any bills

that session, he yielded to Sir George Kemp, who announced that he would

use his place for the purpose of taking a second reading debate on the

new Conciliation Bill. The old bill had been entitled: "A Bill to give

the Vote to Women Occupiers," a title that made amendment difficult. The

new bill bore the more flexible title, "A Bill to Confer the

Parliamentary Franchise on Women," thus doing away with one of Mr.

Lloyd-George's most plausible objections to it. The L10 occupation

clause was omitted, doing away with another objection, that of the

possibility of "faggot voting," that is, of a rich man conferring the

vote on a family of daughters by the simple expedient of making them

tenants of slices of his own property. The Conciliation Bill now read:

"1. Every woman possessed of a household qualification within the

meaning of the Representation of the People Act (1884) shall be entitled

to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote in the county

or borough in which the qualifying premises are situated.

"2. For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified by

marriage for being registered as a voter, provided that a husband and

wife shall not both be registered as voters in the same Parliamentary

borough or county division."

This bill met with even warmer approval than the first one, because it

was believed that it would win votes from those members who felt that

the original measure had fallen short of being truly democratic.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister showed from the first that he intended

to oppose it, as he had all previous suffrage measures. He announced

that all Fridays up to Easter and also all time on Tuesdays and

Wednesdays usually allowed for private members' bills were to be

occupied with consideration of Government measures. Hardly a Liberal

voice was raised against this arbitrary ruling. The Irish members indeed

were delighted with it, since it gave the Home Rule Bill an advantage.

The Labour members seemed complacent, and the rest of the coalition were

indifferent. One back bench Liberal went so far as to rise and thank the

Prime Minister for the courtesy with which the gagging process was

accomplished. There was some show of fight made by the Opposition, but

Conservative indignation was tempered by the reflection that the

precedent established might be followed to advantage when their party

came into power.

Sir George Kemp then announced that he would take May 5th for the second

reading of the Conciliation Bill, and the supporters of the bill,

according to their various convictions, set to work to further its

interests. The conviction of the W. S. P. U. was that Mr. Asquith's

Government would never allow the bill to pass until they were actually

forced to do so, and we adopted our own methods to secure a definite

pledge from the Government that they would give facilities to the bill.

In April of that year the census was to be taken, and we organised a

census resistance on the part of women. According to our law the census

of the entire kingdom must be taken every ten years on a designated day.

Our plan was to reduce the value of the census for statistical purposes

by refusing to make the required returns. Two ways of resistance

presented themselves. The first and most important was direct resistance

by occupiers who should refuse to fill in the census papers. This laid

the register open to a fine of L5 or a month's imprisonment, and thus

required the exercise of considerable courage. The second means of

resistance was evasion--staying away from home during the entire time

that the enumerators were taking the census. We made the announcement of

this plan and instantly there ensued a splendid response from women and

a chorus of horrified disapproval from the conservative public. The

_Times_ voiced this disapproval in a leading article, to which I

replied, giving our reasons for the protest. "The Census," I wrote, "is

a numbering of the people. Until women count as people for the purpose

of representation in the councils of the nation as well as for purposes

of taxation, we shall refuse to be numbered."

On the subject of laws made by men--without the assistance of women--for

the protection of women and children, I have a very special feeling.

From my experience as poor law guardian and as Registrar of Births and

Deaths, I know how ridiculously, say rather how tragically, these laws

fall short of protection. Take for instance the vaunted "Children's

Charter" of 1906, the measure which spread Mr. Lloyd-George's fame

throughout the world. A volume could be filled with the mistakes and the

cruelties of that Act, the object of which is the preservation and

improvement of child life. A distinguishing characteristic of the Act is

that it puts most of the responsibility for neglect of children on the

backs of the mothers, who, under the laws of England, have no rights as

parents. Two or three especially striking cases of this kind came into

notice about this time, and gave the census resistance an additional

justification.

The case of Annie Woolmore was a very pitiful one. She was arrested and

sentenced to Holloway for six weeks for neglecting her children. The

evidence showed that the woman lived with her husband and children in a

miserable hovel, which would have been almost impossible to keep clean

even if there had been water in the house. As it was the poor soul, who

was in ill health and weakened by deprivation, had to carry all the

water she used across a great distance. The children as well as the

house were very dirty, it was true, but the children were well nourished

and kindly treated. The husband, a labourer, out of work much of the

time, testified that his wife "starved herself to feed the kids." Yet

she had violated the terms of the "Children's Charter" and she went to

prison. I am glad to say that owing to the efforts of suffragists she

was pardoned and provided with a better home.

Another case was that of Helen Conroy, who was charged with living in

one wretched room, with her husband and seven children, the youngest a

month old. According to the law the mother was forbidden to have this

infant in bed with her overnight, yet part of the charge against her was

that the child was found sleeping in a box of damp straw. Doubtless she

would have preferred a cradle, or even a box of dry straw. But direst

poverty made the cradle impossible and the conditions of the tenement

kept the straw damp. Both parents in this instance were sent to prison

for three months at hard labour. The magistrate casually remarked that

the house in which these poor people lived had been condemned two years

before, but some respectable property owner was still collecting rents

from it.

Another poor mother, evicted from her home because she could not pay the

rent, took her four children out into the open country, and when found

was sleeping with them in a gravel pit. She was sent to prison for a

month and the children went to the workhouse.

These sorry mothers, logical results of the subjection of women, are

enough in themselves to justify almost any defiance of a Government who

deny the women the right to work out their destinies in freedom. No

pledge having been secured from the Prime Minister by April 1st, we

carried out, and most successfully, our census resistance. Many

thousands of women all over the country refused or evaded the returns. I

returned my census paper with the words "No vote no census" written

across it, and other women followed that example with similar messages.

One woman filled in the blank with full information about her one man

servant, and added that there were many women but no more persons in her

household. In Birmingham sixteen women of wealth packed their houses

with women resisters. They slept on the floors, on chairs and tables,

and even in the baths. The head of a large college threw open the

building to 300 women. Many women in other cities held all night parties

for friends who wished to remain away from home. In some places

unoccupied houses were rented for the night by resisters, who lay on the

bare boards. Some groups of women hired gipsy vans and spent the night

on the moors.

In London we gave a great concert at Queen's Hall on Census night. Many

of us walked about Trafalgar Square until midnight and then repaired to

Aldwich skating rink, where we amused ourselves until morning. Some

skated while others looked on, and enjoyed the admirable musical and

theatrical entertainment that helped to pass the hours. We had with us a

number of the brightest stars in the theatrical world, and they were

generous in their contributions. It being Sunday night, the chairman had

to call on each of the artists for a "speech" instead of a song or other

turn. An all-night restaurant near at hand did a big business, and on

the whole the resisters had a very good time. The Scala Theatre was the

scene of another all-night entertainment.

There was a good deal of curiosity to see what the Government would

devise in the way of a punishment for the rebellious women, but the

Government realised the impossibility of taking punitive action, and Mr.

John Burns, who, as head of the Local Government Board, was responsible

for the census, announced that they had decided to treat the affair with

magnanimity. The number of evasions, he declared, was insignificant. But

every one knew that this was the exact reverse of the facts.

[Illustration: IN THIS MANNER THOUSANDS OF WOMEN THROUGHOUT THE KINGDOM

SLEPT IN UNOCCUPIED HOUSES OVER CENSUS NIGHT]

The Conciliation Bill was debated on May 5th and passed its second

reading by the enormous majority of 137. And now the public and a

section of the press united in a strong demand that the Government yield

to the undoubted will of the House and grant facilities to the bill. The

Conciliation Committee sent a deputation of members to the Prime

Minister to remind him of his pre-election promise that the House of

Commons should have an opportunity of dealing with the whole question

of woman suffrage, but they succeeded only in getting his assurance that

he had the matter under consideration. Late in the month the

announcement was made in the House that the Government would not grant

facilities during that session, but, since the new bill fulfilled the

conditions named by the Prime Minister, and was now capable of

amendment, the Government recognised it to be their duty to grant

facilities in some session of the present Parliament. They would be

prepared next session, when the bill had been again read for the second

time, either as a result of obtaining a good place in the ballot, or (if

that did not happen) by a grant of a Government day for the purpose, to

give a week, which they understood to be the time suggested as

reasonable by the promoters for its further stages.

This pledge was made in order to deter the W. S. P. U. from making a

militant demonstration in connection with the coronation of the King.

Keir Hardie asked if the Government would, by means of a closure or

otherwise, make certain that the bill would go through in the week, and

the Prime Minister replied, "No, I cannot give an assurance of that

kind. After all, it is a problem of the very greatest magnitude."

This reply seemed to make the Government's pledge practically worthless.

The Conciliation Committee also realised the possibilities of the bill

being talked out, and Lord Lytton wrote to Mr. Asquith and asked him for

assurances that the facilities offered were intended not for academic

discussion but for effective opportunity for carrying the bill. He also

asked that the week offered should not be construed rigidly but that,

providing the committee stage were got through in the time, additional

days for the report and third reading stages might be forthcoming.

Reasonable opportunity for making use of the closure was also asked. To

Lord Lytton's letter the Prime Minister replied as follows:

_My dear Lytton_--In reply to your letter on the subject of the

Women's Enfranchisement Bill, I would refer you to some

observations recently made in a speech at the National Liberal Club

by Sir Edward Grey, which accurately expresses the intention of the

Government.

It follows (to answer your specific inquiries), that the "week"

offered will be interpreted with reasonable elasticity, that the

Government will interpose no reasonable obstacle to the proper use

of the closure, and that if (as you suggest) the bill gets through

committee in the time proposed, the extra days required for report

and third reading will not be refused.

The Government, though divided in opinion on the merits of the

bill, are unanimous in their determination to give effect, not only

in the letter but in the spirit, to the promise in regard to

facilities which I made on their behalf before the last general

election.

Yours etc.,

H. H. ASQUITH.

Sceptical up to this point, the W. S. P. U. was now convinced that the

Government were sincere in their promise to give the bill full

facilities in the following year. We held a joyful mass meeting in

Queen's Hall and I again declared that warfare against the Government

was at an end. Our new policy was the inauguration of a great holiday

campaign, with the object of making victory in 1912 absolutely certain.

Electors must be aroused, members of Parliament held to their

allegiance. Women must be organised in order that questions that vitally

affect the social welfare of the country might be placed before them. I

chose Scotland and Wales as the scenes of my holiday labours.

I may say that our confidence was fully shared by the public at large.

The belief in Mr. Asquith's pledge was accurately reflected in a leader

published in _The Nation_, which said: "From the moment the Prime

Minister signed the frank and ungrudging letter to Lord Lytton which

appeared in last Saturday's newspapers, women became, in all but the

legal formality, voters and citizens. For at least two years, if not for

longer, nothing has been lacking save a full and fair opportunity for

the House of Commons to translate its convictions into the precise

language of a statute. That opportunity has been promised for next

session and promised in terms and under conditions which ensure

success."

The only thing, as we thought, that we had to fear were wrecking

amendments to the bill, and in the new by-election policy which we

adopted we worked against all candidates of every party who would refuse

to promise, not only to support the Conciliation Committee to carry the

bill, but also to vote against any amendment the committee thought

dangerous. We believed that we had covered every possibility of

disaster. But we had something yet to learn of the treachery of the

Asquith Ministry and their capacity for cold-blooded lying.

Mr. Lloyd-George from the first was an open enemy of the bill, but since

we had no doubt of the sincerity of the Prime Minister, we could only

conclude that Mr. Lloyd-George had detached himself from the main body

of the Government and had become the self-constituted leader of the

opposition. In an address to a large Liberal group Mr. Lloyd-George

advised that Liberal members be asked to ballot for a place for a

"democratic measure," in order that such a measure might claim the Prime

Minister's pledge for facilities next session. In one or two other

speeches he made vague allusions to the possibilities of introducing

another suffrage bill. His own idea was to amend the bill to give a vote

to wives of all electors--making married women voters in virtue of their

husband's qualification. The inevitable effect of such an amendment

would be to wreck the bill, since it would have enfranchised about

6,000,000 women in addition to the million and a half who would benefit

by the original terms of the bill. Such a wholesale addition to the

electorate was never known in England; the number enfranchised by the

Reform Bill of 1832 being hardly more than half a million. The Reform

Bill of 1867 admitted a million new voters, and that of 1884 perhaps two

millions. The absurdity of Mr. Lloyd-George's proposition was such that

we did not regard it seriously. We did not allow his opposition to give

us serious alarm until a day in August when a Welsh member, Mr. Leif

Jones, asked the Prime Minister from the floor of the House, whether he

was aware that his promise for facilities for the Conciliation Bill in

the next session was being claimed exclusively for that bill, and asked

further for a statement that the promised facilities would be equally

granted to any other suffrage bill that might secure a second reading

and was capable of amendment. Mr. Lloyd-George, speaking for the

Government, replied that they could not undertake to give facilities to

more than one bill on the same subject, but that any bill which,

satisfying these tests, secured a second reading, would be treated by

them as falling within their engagements.

Astounded at this plain evasion of a sacred promise, Lord Lytton again

wrote to the Prime Minister, reviewing the entire matter, and asking for

another statement of the Government's intentions. The following is the

text of Mr. Asquith's reply:

_My dear Lytton_--I have no hesitation in saying that the promises

made by, and on behalf of the Government, in regard to giving

facilities to the Conciliation Bill, will be strictly adhered to,

both in letter and in spirit.

Yours sincerely,

H. H. ASQUITH.

August 23, 1911.

Again we were reassured, and our confidence in the Premier's pledge

remained unshaken throughout the campaign, although Mr. Lloyd-George

continued to throw out hints that the promises of facilities for the

bill were altogether illusory. We could not believe him, and when, two

months later, I was asked in America: "When will English women vote?" I

replied with perfect conviction, "Next year."

This was in Louisville, Kentucky, where I attended the 1911 Annual

Convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.

I remember this third visit to the United States with especial

pleasure. I was the guest in New York of Dr. and Mrs. John Winters

Brannan, and through the courtesy of Dr. Brannan, who is at the head of

all the city hospitals, I saw something of the penal system and the

institutional life of America. We visited the workhouse and the

penitentiary on Blackwell's Island, and although I am told that these

places are not regarded as model institutions, I can assure my readers

that they are infinitely superior to the English prisons where women are

punished for trying to win their political freedom. In the American

prisons, much as they lacked in some essentials, I saw no solitary

confinement, no rule of silence, no deadly air of officialdom. The food

was good and varied, and above all there was an air of kindness and good

feeling between the officials and the prisoners that is almost wholly

lacking in England.

But, after all, in the United States as in other countries, the problem

of the relations between unfranchised women and the State remains

unsolved and unsatisfactory. One night my friends took me to that sombre

and terrible institution, the Night Court for Women. We sat on the bench

with the magistrate, and he very courteously explained everything to us.

The whole business was heart-breaking. All the women, with one

exception--an old drunkard--were charged with solicitation. Most of them

were of high type by nature. It all seemed so hopeless, and it was clear

that they were victims of an evil system. Their conviction was a

foregone conclusion.

The magistrate said that in most cases the reason for their coming

there was economic. One case of a little cigar maker, who said very

simply that she only went on the streets when out of work, and that when

in work she earned $8 a week, was very tragic and touching. I could not

keep the Night Court out of my speeches after that. The whole dreadful

injustice of women's lives seemed mirrored in that place.

I went as far west as the Pacific Coast on this visit, spending

Christmas day in Seattle, and for the first time seeing a community

where women and men existed on terms of exact equality. It was a

delightful experience. As I wrote home to our members, the men of the

western States seemed to my eyes eager, earnest, rough men, building a

great community in a great hurry, but never have I seen greater respect,

courtesy and chivalry shown to women than in that one Suffrage State it

has been my privilege to visit.

I am getting a little ahead of my story, however. It was in November,

when I was in the city of Minneapolis, that a crushing blow descended on

the English suffragists. I learned of this through cabled despatches in

the newspapers and from private cables, and was so staggered that I

could scarcely command myself sufficiently to fill my immediate

engagements. This was the news, that the Government had broken their

plighted word and had deliberately destroyed the Conciliation Bill. My

first wild thought, on hearing of this act of treachery, was to cancel

all engagements and return to England, but my final decision to remain

afterwards proved the right one, because the women at home, without a

moment's loss of time, struck the answering blow, guided by that

insight which has been characteristic of every act of the members of our

Union. I did not return to England until January 11, 1912, and by that

time great deeds had been done. Our movement had entered upon a new and

more vigorous stage of militancy.

FOOTNOTE:

[2] Lady Constance Lytton's story has been thrillingly told in her book

"Prisons and Prisoners," Heinemann.