summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/48614-h/48614-h.htm
blob: 11773b160fd4a1971a42fbc77152a48b1a5d8647 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Women's Suffrage, by Millicent Garrett Fawcett.
    </title>
    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
    clear: both;
}

.faux {
    font-size: 0.1em;
    visibility: hidden;
}

.chapter
{
  page-break-before: always;
  text-align: center;
}

p {
    margin-top: .51em;
    text-align: justify;
    margin-bottom: .49em;
}

p.quotsig { /* author signature at end of letter */
  margin-left: 35%;
  text-indent: -4em; /* gimmick to move 2nd line right */
  }

.mt2 {margin-top: 2em;}
.mt4 {margin-top: 4em;}
.mb2 {margin-bottom: 2em}
.mb4 {margin-bottom: 4em}

hr {
    width: 33%;
    margin-top: 2em;
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    margin-left: 33.5%;
    margin-right: 33.5%;
    clear: both;
}

hr.tb   {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;}
hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%}

ul.index { list-style-type: none; }
li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em; }
li.indx { margin-top: .5em; }
li.isub1 {text-indent: 1em;}
li.isub2 {text-indent: 2em;}
li.isub3 {text-indent: 3em;}

ul {
 list-style-type:none;
 margin:0em;
 margin-left: 10%;
 padding:0;
 max-width:40em;
}

li {
 margin:0em;
 page-break-inside:avoid;
 padding:0 1em 0 1.3em;
 text-indent:-1.3em;
}

table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
}

    .tdl      {text-align: left;}
    .tdr      {text-align: right;}
    .tdc      {text-align: center;}
    .vt       {vertical-align: top;}
    .vb       {vertical-align: bottom;}

table.bordered   {border-spacing: 0; border-collapse: collapse;}

    .bt0 {border-top: none;}
    .bb0 {border-bottom: none;}
    .bl0 {border-left: none;}
    .br0 {border-right: none;}

.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
    /*  visibility: hidden;  */
    position: absolute;
    left: 92%;
    font-size: smaller;
    text-align: right;
} /* page numbers */

.blockquot {
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

.center   {text-align: center;}

.right   {text-align: right;}

.hang {text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 1em; margin-left: 0em;}

.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}

.lowercase  { text-transform:lowercase;}


abbr { border:none; text-decoration:none; font-variant:normal; }

.caption  {font-weight: bold;}

.titlepage {page-break-before: always}

.smaller {font-size: 0.8em;}
.big {font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold;}
.bigger {font-size: 1.6em; font-weight: bold;}
.huge {font-size: 2.5em;}

.block {text-align: center;}

.block-contents {display: inline-block; text-align: left;}

/* Images */
img {
    max-width: 100%; /* no image to be wider than screen or containing div */
    height:auto;     /* keep height in proportion to width */
}

div.figcenter {
    clear: both;
    margin: 2em auto;
    text-align: center;
    max-width: 100%; /* div no wider than screen, even when screen is narrow  */
}

/* Footnotes */
.footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}

.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}

.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: super;
    font-size: .8em;
    text-decoration:
    none;
}

/* Poetry */
.poetry-container
  {
  text-align: center;
  margin: -1em 0;
  }

.poetry
  {
  display: inline-block;
  text-align: left;
  }

.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;}

.poetry .verse
  {
  text-indent: -3em;
  padding-left: 3em;
  }

.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2em;}
.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;}
.poetry .indent6 {text-indent: 0em;}
.poetry .indent8 {text-indent: 1em;}
.poetry .indent10 {text-indent: 2em;}
.poetry .indent12 {text-indent: 3em;}
.poetry .indent14 {text-indent: 4em;}
.poetry .indent16 {text-indent: 5em;}
.poetry .indent18 {text-indent: 6em;}
.poetry .indent20 {text-indent: 7em;}

.size2 {font-size: 2.5em;}
.ml25 {margin-left: -3.1em;}
sup { font-size: 1em; vertical-align: top; position: relative; top: .5em; }
sub {font-size: 1em;}

/* Transcriber's notes */
.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA;
    color: black;
     font-size:smaller;
     padding:0.5em;
     margin-bottom:5em;
}

.screenonly { display: block; }
.handonly   { display: none; }
.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}

@media handheld /* Place this at the end of the CSS */
{
  body
  {
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0;
    width: 95%;
  }

  .block-contents
  {
    display: block;
    margin-left: 1.5em;
  }

  .poetry
  {
    display: block;
    margin-left: 1.5em;
  }

  .chapter
  {
    page-break-before: always;
  }

  .screenonly { display: none;  }
  .handonly   { display: block; }
  .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;}
}
    </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 48614 ***</div>

<h1 class="faux">WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE: A SHORT HISTORY OF A
GREAT MOVEMENT</h1>




<p class="center huge">WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE</p>

<p class="center big">A SHORT HISTORY OF A
GREAT MOVEMENT</p>

<p class="center big"><span class="smcap">By</span> MILLICENT GARRETT
FAWCETT, LL.D.</p>

<p class="center">PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE SOCIETIES</p>


<p class="center mt4">LONDON: T. C. &amp; E. C. JACK<br />
67 LONG ACRE, W.C., AND EDINBURGH<br />
NEW YORK: THE DODGE PUBLISHING CO.
</p>

<hr class="chap" />



<div class="poetry-container">
  <div class="poetry">
    <div class="stanza">
      <div class="verse">It is not to be thought of that the flood</div>
      <div class="verse">Of British freedom, which to the open sea</div>
      <div class="verse">Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity</div>
      <div class="verse">Hath flowed "with pomp of waters unwithstood"&mdash;</div>
      <div class="verse">Road by which all might come and go that would,</div>
      <div class="verse">And bear out freights of worth to foreign lands;</div>
      <div class="verse">That this most famous stream in bogs and sands</div>
      <div class="verse">Should perish, and to evil and to good</div>
      <div class="verse">Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung</div>
      <div class="verse">Armoury of the invincible knights of old:</div>
      <div class="verse">We must be free or die, who speak the tongue</div>
      <div class="verse">That Shakespeare spake&mdash;the faith and morals hold</div>
      <div class="verse">Which Milton held. In everything we're sprung</div>
      <div class="verse">Of earth's first blood, have titles manifold.</div>
</div><div class="stanza">
      <div class="verse indent20">&mdash;<span class="smcap">W. Wordsworth.</span></div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span></p>



<p class="center big">WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE</p>



<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="1">I</abbr><br />

<small>THE BEGINNINGS</small></h2>


<p>We suffragists have no cause to be ashamed of the
founders of our movement&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
  <div class="poetry">
    <div class="stanza">
      <div class="verse indent16">"In everything we're sprung</div>
      <div class="verse">Of earth's first blood, have titles manifold."</div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>


<p>Mary Wollstonecraft<a name="Anchor-1" id="Anchor-1"></a><a href="#Footnote-1" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 1.">[1]</a> started the demand of women
for political liberty in England, Condorcet in France,<a name="Anchor-2" id="Anchor-2"></a><a href="#Footnote-2" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 2.">[2]</a>
and the heroic group of anti-slavery agitators in the
United States. It is true that Horace Walpole called
Mary Wollstonecraft "a hyena in petticoats." But
this proves nothing except his profound ignorance of
her character and aims. Have we not in our own time
heard the ladies who first joined the Primrose League
described by an excited politician as "filthy witches"?
The epithet of course was as totally removed from any
relation to the facts as that which Horace Walpole
applied to Mary Wollstonecraft. William Godwin's
touching memoir of his wife, Mr. Kegan Paul's <cite>William
Godwin: his Friends and Contemporaries</cite>, and Mrs.
Pennell's Biography show Mary Wollstonecraft as a
woman of exceptionally pure and exalted character.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>Her sharp wits had been sharpened by every sort of
personal misfortune; they enabled her to pierce through
all shams and pretences, but they never caused her to
lower her high sense of duty; they never embittered
her or caused her to waver in her allegiance to the
pieties of domestic life. Her husband wrote of her
soon after her death, "She was a worshipper of domestic
life." If there is anything in appearance, her face
in the picture in the National Portrait Gallery speaks
for her. Southey wrote of her, that of all the lions of
the day whom he had seen "her face was the best,
infinitely the best."</p>

<p>The torch which was lighted by Mary Wollstonecraft
was never afterwards extinguished; there are glimpses
of its light in the poems of her son-in-law Shelley.
The frequent references to the principle of equality
between men and women in the "Revolt of Islam" will
occur to every reader.</p>

<p>In 1810 Sydney Smith, in the <cite>Edinburgh Review</cite>, wrote
one of the most brilliant and witty articles which even
he ever penned in defence of an extension of the means
of a sound education to women.</p>

<p>In 1813 Mrs. Elizabeth Fry began to visit prisoners
in Newgate, and shocked those who, citing the parrot
cry "woman's place is home," thought a good woman
had no duties outside its walls. She had children of
her own, but this did not shut her heart to the wretched
waifs for whom she founded a school in prison. A
little after this England began to be stirred by the
agitation which resulted in the passing of the Reform
Bill of 1832. It is one of life's little ironies that James
Mill, the founder of the Philosophical Radicals, and
the father of John Stuart Mill, who laid the foundation
of the modern suffrage movement, was among those
who, in the early nineteenth century, justified the exclusion
of women from all political rights. In an Essay
on "Government" published in 1823 as an appendix
to the fifth edition of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, he
dismissed in a sentence all claim of women to share in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>the benefits and protection of representative government,
stating that their interests were sufficiently
protected by the enfranchisement of their husbands
and fathers. It is true that this did not pass unchallenged;
a book in reply was published (1825) by
William Thomson. This book had a preface by Mrs.
Wheeler, at whose instigation it was written.<a name="Anchor-3" id="Anchor-3"></a><a href="#Footnote-3" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 3.">[3]</a></p>

<p>The Reform Movement was agitating the whole
country at this period, and political excitement led to
political riots, burning of buildings, and general orgies
of massacre and destruction. The Government of the
day had their share in the blunders and stupidities
which led to these crimes, and in none were these
qualities more conspicuous than in the riot at Manchester,
which came to be known as the Peterloo Massacre in
August 1819, in which six people were killed and about
thirty seriously injured.</p>

<p>What connects it with the subject of these pages has
already been hinted at. Women as well as men had
been ridden down by the cavalry; they were present
at the meeting not merely as spectators, but as taking
an active part in the Reform Movement. A picture
of the Peterloo Massacre, now in the Manchester Reform
Club, is dedicated to "Henry Hunt, Esq., the chairman of
the meeting and <em>to the Female Reformers of Manchester</em>
and the adjacent towns who were exposed to and
suffered from the wanton and furious attack made
on them by that brutal armed force, the Manchester
and Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry." The picture represents
women in every part of the fray, and certainly
taking their share in its horrors. In the many descriptions
of the event, no word of reprobation has
come to my notice of the women who were taking part
in the meeting; they were neither "hyenas" nor
"witches," but patriotic women helping their husbands
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>and brothers to obtain political liberty; in a word, they
were working for men and not for themselves, and this
made an immense difference in the judgment meted
out to them. However, it is quite clear that even as
long ago as 1819 the notion that women have nothing
to do with politics was in practice rejected by the
political common-sense of Englishmen. No one doubted
that women were, and ought to be, deeply interested in
what concerned the political well-being of their country.</p>

<p>Some political antiquarians in this country have
expressed their conviction that in early times when
the institution of feudalism was the strongest political
force in England, women exercised electoral rights in
those cases where they were entitled as landowners
or as freewomen of certain towns to do so.<a name="Anchor-4" id="Anchor-4"></a><a href="#Footnote-4" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 4.">[4]</a> This
view has been combated by other authorities, and has
not been accepted in the law courts, where special
emphasis has been laid on the fact that no authentic
case of a woman having actually cast a vote, as of right,
in a Parliamentary election can be produced. The
claim that in ancient times women did exercise the
franchise, whether capable of being established or not,
certainly does not deserve to be dismissed as in itself
absurd and incredible. I believe it has been called by
some anti-suffragists "an impudent imposture," in
the most approved style of the "what-I-know-not-is-not-knowledge"
pedant. Whatever it may be, it is not
this. In a book published in 1911,<a name="Anchor-5" id="Anchor-5"></a><a href="#Footnote-5" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 5.">[5]</a> there is a passage
which goes far to prove that even as late as 1807 the
right of women possessing the necessary legal qualification
to vote in Parliamentary elections was recognised
as being in existence. One of the Spencer Stanhopes
was a candidate during the general election of 1807,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>and Mrs. Spencer Stanhope writes to her son, John,
that her husband's party was so certain of success that
they had announced that their women folk need not
vote. "Your father was at Wakefield canvassing
yesterday.... They determined not to admit the
ladies to vote, which is extraordinary and very hard,
considering how few privileges we poor females have.
Should it come to a very close struggle, I daresay they
will then call upon the ladies, and in that case every
self-respecting woman should most certainly refuse
her assistance."</p>

<p>The contention is that the Reform Act of 1832, by
substituting the words "male person" in lieu of the
word "man" in the earlier Acts, first placed upon the
women of this country the burden of a statutory disability.
This process, it is argued, was repeated in
the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835, and is the
reason why the admission of women to the municipal
franchise in 1870 is spoken of in many of our suffrage
publications as the "<cite>Restoration</cite>" of the municipal
suffrage to women. The point appears more of antiquarian
than of practical interest. If substantiated,
it only illustrates anew the fact that under feudalism,
and as long as feudalism survived, property rather than
human beings had a special claim to representation,
but it assumed a larger degree of importance from
what followed in 1850 and 1868.</p>

<p>In 1850 Lord Brougham's Act was passed, which
enacted that in all Acts of Parliament "words importing
the masculine gender shall be deemed to include females
unless the contrary is expressly provided." In the
Reform Bill of 1867 the words "male person" were
abandoned, and the word "man" was substituted,
and many lawyers and others believed that under Lord
Brougham's Act of 1850 women were thereby enfranchised.
Under this belief, the reasons for which
were set forth by Mr. Chisholm Anstey, barrister and
ex-M.P., in two legal pamphlets published, one just
before and one just after the passing of the Reform
Bill of 1867, a large number of women rate-payers
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>claimed before the revising barristers in 1868 to be
placed upon the Parliamentary register. Under the
able leadership of Miss Lydia Becker 5346 women
householders of Manchester made this claim, 1341 in
Salford, 857 in Broughton and Pendleton, 1 lady in
<abbr title="South East">S.E.</abbr> Lancashire, a county constituency, 239 in Edinburgh,
and a few in other parts of Scotland. The
revising barristers in most of these cases declined to
place the women's names on the register; and in order
to get a legal decision, four cases were selected and
argued before the Court of Common Pleas on November
7, 1868. The judges were the Lord Chief Justice
Bovill, with the Justices Willes, Keating, and Byles.
Sir John (afterwards Lord) Coleridge, and Dr. Pankhurst
were counsel for the appellants. The case (technically
known as Chorlton <i>v.</i> Lings) was given against the
women, on the express ground that although the word
"man" in an Act of Parliament must be held to include
women, "<em>this did not apply to the privileges granted by
the State</em>." This judgment, therefore, established as
law that "the same words in the same Act of Parliament
shall for the purpose of voting apply to men only,
but for the purpose of taxation shall include women."<a name="Anchor-6" id="Anchor-6"></a><a href="#Footnote-6" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 6.">[6]</a></p>

<p>Some women's names had been accepted by revising
barristers, and were already upon the register. A
question was raised whether they could remain there.
The barrister in charge of this case, Mr. A. Russell, Q.C.,
argued that when once the names were upon the register,
if they had not been objected to they must remain;
one of the judges thereupon remarked that if this were
so there would be no power to remove the name of <em>a
dog or a horse</em> from the register if once it had been inscribed
upon it. This was eloquent of the political
status of women, identifying it by implication with
that of the domestic animals. <cite>The Times</cite>, in anticipation
of the Chorlton <i>v.</i> Lings case coming on for hearing,
had an article on November 3, 1868, in which it said:
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>"If one supposes it ever was the intention of the legislature
to give women a vote, and if they do get it, it
will be by a sort of accident, in itself objectionable,
though, in its practical consequences, perhaps harmless
enough. On the other hand, if they are refused, <em>the
nation will, no doubt, be formally and in the light of day
committing itself through its judicial tribunal, to the
dangerous doctrine that representation need not go along
with taxation</em>." With the decision in Chorlton <i>v.</i> Lings,
the last chance of women getting the suffrage by "a
sort of accident" vanishes, and very few of us can
now regret it, for the long struggle to obtain suffrage
has been a great education for women, not only politically,
but also in courage, perseverance, endurance, and
comradeship with each other.</p>

<p>If the nineteenth century was a time of education for
women, it was no less a time of education for men.
We have not yet arrived at an equal moral standard
for men and women, but we have travelled a long way
on the road leading to it. A George <abbr title="the first">I.</abbr> openly surrounding
himself with mistresses, and shutting up his
wife for life in a fortress for levity of behaviour; a
George <abbr title="the fourth">IV.</abbr> who measured with similar inequality his
own and his wife's connubial transgressions, would not
be tolerated in the England of the twentieth century.
The awakening of women to a sense of their wrongs
before the law was a leading feature of the women's
movement in the early nineteenth century. The <abbr title="Honourable">Hon.</abbr>
Mrs. Norton, the beautiful and gifted daughter of Tom
Sheridan, a reigning toast, a society beauty, and with
literary accomplishments sufficient to secure her an
independent income from her pen, was subjected to
every sort of humiliation and anguish as a wife and
mother which the mean and cruel nature of her husband
could devise. Mr. Norton brought an action against
Lord Melbourne for the seduction of his wife, and the
jury decided without leaving the box that Lord Melbourne
was wholly innocent. This did not prevent
the petty malice of her husband from depriving Mrs.
Norton entirely of her three infant children, one of
whom died from an accident which ought never to have
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>happened if the child had been duly cared for. To
read her life<a name="Anchor-7" id="Anchor-7"></a><a href="#Footnote-7" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 7.">[7]</a> is comparable to being present at a
vivisection. Mrs. Norton had one weapon. She could
make herself heard; she wrote a pamphlet in 1836
called "<cite>The Natural Claim of a Mother to the Custody of
her Children as affected by the Common Law Right of the
Father</cite>." One result which followed from Mrs. Norton's
sufferings, coupled with her power of giving public
expression to them, was the passing of Serjeant Talfourd's
Act in 1839, called the Infants' Custody Act, giving a
mother the right of access to her children until they are
seven years old. This is the first inroad on the monopoly
on the part of the father of absolute control over his
children created by the English law. The division of
legal rights over their children between fathers and
mothers has been described by a lawyer as extremely
simple&mdash;the fathers have all and the mothers none.
Serjeant Talfourd's Act did not do much to redress this
gross injustice; but it did something, and marks the
beginning of a new epoch.</p>

<p>Little by little things began to change. Mrs. Somerville
and Miss Caroline Herschell were elected members
of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1835. Mrs.
Browning wrote "Aurora Leigh," and thereby touched
the whole woman's question with an artist's hand.
Thackeray, in <cite>Esmond</cite>, pointed the finger of scorn at
the "politicians and coffee-house wiseacres," who are
full of oratorical indignation against the tyrannies of
the Emperor or the French King, and wonders how they,
who are tyrants too in their way, govern their own
little dominions at home, where each man reigns absolute.
"When the annals of each little reign are
shown to the Supreme Master, under whom we hold
sovereignty, histories will be laid bare of household
tyrants as cruel as Amurath, and as savage as Nero,
and as reckless and dissolute as Charles." This was
a new note in literature. Mrs. Jameson and the Brontë
sisters contributed much in the same key. Anne
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>Knight, a Quaker lady of Quiet House, Chelmsford,
issued about 1847 a small leaflet boldly claiming a share
for women in political freedom. There can be little
doubt that the presence of a pure and virtuous young
woman upon the throne had its influence in leading
people to question seriously whether there was any real
advantage to the nation at large in shutting out from
direct political power all women who were not queens.
In 1848<a name="Anchor-8" id="Anchor-8"></a><a href="#Footnote-8" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 8.">[8]</a> Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, had
said, "In a country governed by a woman&mdash;where you
allow women to form part of the other estate of the
realm&mdash;peeresses in their own right, for example&mdash;where
you allow women not only to hold land but to
be ladies of the manor and hold legal courts&mdash;where a
woman by law may be a churchwarden and overseer of
the poor&mdash;I do not see, where she has so much to do
with the State and Church, on what reasons, if you
come to right, she has not a right to vote."</p>

<p>Other influences were operating to open political
activity to women. Their help and co-operation were
warmly welcomed by the Anti-Corn Law League.
Cobden, at one of the great meetings of the League held
in Covent Garden Theatre in 1845, said that he wished
women could vote. A few years later than this the
Sheffield Female Political Association passed a resolution
in favour of women's suffrage, and presented
a petition in this sense to the House of Lords. The
refusal to allow women who had been duly appointed as
delegates in the United States to take their places in
the Anti-Slavery Congress held in London in 1840
roused a great deal of controversy, especially as William
Lloyd Garrison, the leader of the Anti-Slavery Movement
in America,<a name="Anchor-9" id="Anchor-9"></a><a href="#Footnote-9" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 9.">[9]</a> declared that if the ladies were excluded
he would share their exclusion with them; he
did this, and sat with them in a side gallery, taking no
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>part in the discussion. The opponents of the women
took refuge, as they have so often done before and
since, in an affirmation that they were the special repositories
of the Divine Will on the subject, and declared
that it was contrary to the ordinances of the
Almighty that women should take part in the Congress.
The treatment they had received in London naturally
caused great indignation on the part of the American
ladies, among whom were Elizabeth Cady Stanton
and Lucretia Mott. When they returned to their own
country they immediately began to work for the political
enfranchisement of women, and the first Women's
Rights Convention was held in the United States at
Seneca Falls in 1848. This was the beginning of definite
work for women's suffrage in the United
States.</p>

<p>In England in the 'fifties came the Crimean War,
with the deep stirring of national feeling which accompanied
it, and the passion of gratitude and admiration
which was poured forth on Miss Florence Nightingale
for her work on behalf of our wounded soldiers. It
was universally felt that there was work for women,
even in war&mdash;the work of cleansing, setting in order,
breaking down red tape, and soothing the vast sum of
human suffering which every war is bound to cause.
Miss Nightingale's work in war was work that never
had been done until women came forward to do it, and
her message to her countrywomen was educate yourselves,
prepare, make ready; never imagine that your
task can be done by instinct, without training and preparation.
Painstaking study, she insisted, was just
as necessary as a preparation for women's work as
for men's work; and she bestowed the whole of the
monetary gift offered her by the gratitude of the nation
to form training-schools for nurses at <abbr title="Saint">St.</abbr> Thomas's
and King's College Hospitals.</p>

<p>When a fire is once kindled many things will serve as
fuel which to a superficial glance would seem to have
no connection with it. The sufferings and torture of
women during the Indian Mutiny heroically borne
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>helped people to see that Empire is built on the lives of
women as well as on the lives of men.</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
  <div class="poetry">
    <div class="stanza">
      <div class="verse">"<em>On the bones of the English</em></div>
      <div class="verse"><em>The English flag is stayed</em>,"</div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>


<p>means that women as well as men have laid down their
lives for their country.</p>

<p>In 1857 the movement among women for political
recognition was stimulated in quite a different way.
In that year the Divorce Act was passed, and, as is
well known, set up by law a different moral standard
for men and women. Under this Act, which is still in
force (1911), a man can obtain the dissolution of his
marriage if he can prove one act of infidelity on the
part of his wife; but a woman cannot get her marriage
dissolved unless she can prove that her husband has
been guilty both of infidelity and cruelty. Mr. Gladstone
vehemently opposed this Bill. It is said that "in a
ten hours' debate on a single clause he made no less than
twenty-nine speeches, some of them of considerable
length."<a name="Anchor-10" id="Anchor-10"></a><a href="#Footnote-10" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 10.">[10]</a> All these things prepared the way for the
movement which took definite shape in the next decade.</p>



<hr class="chap" />

<div class="chapter"></div>

<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="2">II</abbr><br />

<small>WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT&mdash;FIRST
STAGE</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"All who live in a country should take an interest in that
country, love that country, and the vote gives that sense
of interest, fosters that love."&mdash;<abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> W. E. Gladstone.</p></div>


<p>The women's suffrage question in 1860 was on the
point of entering a new phase&mdash;the phase of practical
politics. Parliamentary Reform was again before the
country; the principles of representation were constantly
discussed in newspapers, and in every social
circle where intelligent men and women met.</p>

<p>James Mill's article on "Government," referred to in
Chapter <abbr title="1">I.</abbr>, has been described as being "out of sight
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>the most important in the series of events which culminated
in the passing of the Reform Act of 1832."<a name="Anchor-11" id="Anchor-11"></a><a href="#Footnote-11" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 11.">[11]</a>
The works of his son, John Stuart Mill, had a similar
influence on the series of events which led up to the
passing of the Reform Act of 1867. But whereas James
Mill had specifically excluded women from his argument,
John Mill as specifically and with great force and
vigour included them.</p>

<p>In his <cite>Political Economy</cite>, and in his collected essays,
and, of course, in his <cite>Liberty</cite>, it was easy to perceive
that he strongly condemned the condition of subordination
to which the mass of women had been from
time immemorial condemned. But in his <cite>Representative
Government</cite>, published in 1861, he put forward in a
few eloquent pages of powerful argument the case for
the extension of the suffrage to women, showing that
all the arguments by which the principles of representative
government were supported were equally
applicable to woman.<a name="Anchor-12" id="Anchor-12"></a><a href="#Footnote-12" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 12.">[12]</a></p>

<p>The volumes of his correspondence, published in 1908,
show how constantly his mind dwelt on the grave injustice
to women involved by their exclusion from
political rights, and also how deeply he was convinced
that the whole of society loses by treating them as if
they had no responsibility for the right conduct of
national affairs. It was an enormous advantage to the
whole women's movement, not only in England, but
all over the world, that it had for its leader and
champion a man in the front rank of political philosophers
and thinkers. He formed a school at the
universities, and in all centres of intellectual activity,
and from that school a large number of the chief leaders
and supporters of the women's movement have been
derived.</p>

<p>As early as 1851 an essay on the "Enfranchisement of
Women" had appeared in the <cite>Westminster Review</cite>. It
had been written by Mrs. J. S. Mill, and took the form of
a review of the proceedings of a Convention of Women
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>held in Worcester, Massachusetts, in the previous year to
promote the cause of the political enfranchisement of
women.</p>

<p>The essay is a complete and masterly statement of the
case for the emancipation of women. The terminology
is a little out of date, but the state of mind which she
exposes is perennial. We can all, for instance, recognise
the applicability of the following sentences to the
present time:&mdash;</p>

<p>"For with what truth or rationality could the
suffrage be termed universal while half the human
species remain excluded from it? To declare that a
voice in the government is the right of all, and demand
it only for a part&mdash;the part, namely, to which the
claimant belongs&mdash;is to renounce even the appearance
of principle. The Chartist, who denies the suffrage to
women, is a Chartist only because he is not a lord; he is
one of those levellers who would level only down to
themselves."<a name="Anchor-13" id="Anchor-13"></a><a href="#Footnote-13" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 13.">[13]</a></p>

<p>This essay, with its clear, pointed, and epigrammatic
style, produced a great effect on the more cultivated
section of public opinion. If Mrs. Mill had lived longer
she would probably have inaugurated the practical organisation
of a women's enfranchisement movement, but
she died in the autumn of 1858. What her death meant
to her husband he has left on record in glowing and
touching words, and in his loneliness he endeavoured
"because she would have wished it," to make the best
of what life was left to him, "to work on for her purposes
with such diminished strength as could be derived from
thoughts of her and communion with her memory."<a name="Anchor-14" id="Anchor-14"></a><a href="#Footnote-14" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 14.">[14]</a></p>

<p>Shortly before the general election of 1865 Mr. Mill
was invited by a considerable body of electors of the
Borough of Westminster to offer himself as a candidate.
In reply he made the plainest possible statement of his
political views, including his conviction that women
were entitled to representation in Parliament. It was
the first time that women's suffrage had ever been
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>brought before English electors, and the fact that
after having announced himself as strongly in favour
of it Mr. Mill was elected, gave a place to women's
suffrage in practical politics.</p>

<p>The situation in Parliament, as regards Parliamentary
Reform, at the time of Mr. Mill's election was very
like what it is now in respect of women's suffrage.
Parliament had been playing with the subject for a
great many years. Reform Bills had been introduced,
voted for, and abandoned again and again. The real
reformers were growing impatient. I, myself, heard
John Bright say about this time or a little later that he
began to think the best way of carrying a Reform Bill
was to tell working men that "a good rifle could be
bought for £2." Candidates who stood for election
pledged themselves to Parliamentary Reform, but year
after year went by and nothing was done. Each party
brought forward Reform Bills, but neither party really
wished to enfranchise the working classes. Before 1867
the total electorate only numbered a little over one
million voters. The Reform Bill of 1867 more than
doubled this number. It is not in human nature for
members of Parliament really to like a very large increase
in the number of their constituents. Besides the
extra trouble and expense involved, there was in 1865
another deterrent&mdash;terror. Those who held power
feared the working classes. Working men were supposed
to be the enemies of property, and working men
were in an enormous numerical majority over all other
classes combined. "You must not have the vote
because there are so many of you" was a much more
effective argument when used against working men than
it is when used against women; because the working
classes are fifteen or sixteen times more numerous
than all other classes combined, whereas women
are only slightly in excess of men.<a name="Anchor-15" id="Anchor-15"></a><a href="#Footnote-15" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 15.">[15]</a> On one excuse or
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>another the Reform Bills constantly brought before
Parliament were dropped or burked in one of the
thousand ways open to the experienced Parliamentarian
for getting rid of measures which he has to appear to
support, but to which he is in reality opposed. The
time had come, however, after 1865, when it became
apparent that the game was up, and that a Reform
Bill would have to be passed. It was to this Parliament
that Mill was elected, and in which in 1867, as an amendment
to the Reform Bill, he raised the question of the
enfranchisement of women. His motion was to omit
the word "man" and insert the word "person" in
the enfranchising clause. Of this he says himself that
it was by far the most important public service that
he was able to perform as a member of Parliament.
Seventy-three members voted with him and 196
against him; with the addition of pairs and tellers the
total number supporting women's suffrage was over
80. This amount of support surpassed all expectations.
Before the debate and division it was uncertain whether
women's suffrage would command more than a few
stray votes in the House. Mr. Mill's masterly speech,
grave and high-toned, made a deep impression. Perhaps
the thing that pleased him most was the fact that John
Bright voted with him. He was known to be an
opponent of women's suffrage, but he was fairly won
over by the force of Mill's speech. Those who watched
him sitting in the corner seat of the front row on the
left-hand side of the Speaker, just below Mr. Mill, saw
his whole expression and demeanour change as the
speech proceeded. His defiant, mocking expression
changed to one that was serious and thoughtful; no
one but Mill ever had the moral and mental strength
to wrestle with him again successfully. It was the
first and last time he ever gave a vote for women's
suffrage.</p>

<p>It is an oft-told tale how in the previous year a
little committee of workers had been formed to promote
a Parliamentary petition from women in favour of
women's suffrage. It met in the house of Miss Garrett,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>(now Mrs. Garrett Anderson, M.D.), and included Mrs.
Bodichon, Miss Emily Davies, Mrs. Peter Taylor, Miss
Rosamond Davenport Hill, and other well-known
women. They consulted Mr. Mill about the petition,
and he promised to present it if they could collect as
many as a hundred names. After a fortnight's work
they secured 1499, including many of the most distinguished
women of the day, such as Mrs. Somerville,
Frances Power Cobbe, Florence Nightingale, Harriet
Martineau, Miss Swanwick, Mrs. Josephine Butler,
Lady Anna Gore Langton, Mrs. William Grey. In
June 1866 Miss Garrett and Miss Emily Davies took the
petition down to the House, entering by way of Westminster
Hall. They were a little embarrassed by the
size of the roll in their charge, and deposited it with
the old apple-woman, who hid it under her stall. The
ladies did not know how to find Mr. Mill, when at that
moment Mr. Fawcett passed through Westminster
Hall and at once offered to go in search of him. Mr.
Mill was much amused on his arrival when he found
the petition was hidden away under the apple-woman's
stall; but he was greatly delighted by the large number
of names which had been obtained, and exclaimed,
"Ah, this I can brandish with great effect."<a name="Anchor-16" id="Anchor-16"></a><a href="#Footnote-16" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 16.">[16]</a></p>

<p>It was in 1867 that the Reform Bill was carried, and
Mr. Mill's Women's Suffrage Amendment defeated on
May 20th. The testing of the actual legal effect of the
passing of the Bill upon the political status of women
(already described in Chapter <abbr title="1">I.</abbr>) took place in 1868.
These events caused a great deal of thought and discussion
with regard to women's position in relation to
the State and public duties in general; and it is as
certain as anything which is insusceptible of absolute
proof can be, that to the interest excited by the claim
of women to the Parliamentary vote was due the
granting to them of the Municipal Franchise in 1869;
and also that in 1870, when the first great Education
Act was passed, they were not only given the right to
vote for members of School Boards, but also the right
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>to be elected upon them. At the first School Board
election, which took place in London in November 1870,
Miss Elizabeth Garrett, M.D., and Miss Emily Davies
were returned as members. Miss Garrett was at the
head of the poll in her constituency&mdash;Marylebone. She
polled more than 47,000 votes, the largest number, it
was said at the time, which had ever been bestowed
upon any candidate in any election in England. In
Manchester Miss Becker was elected a member of the
first School Board, and was continuously re-elected for
twenty years, until her death in 1890. In Edinburgh
Miss Flora Stevenson was elected to the first School
Board, and was continuously re-elected for thirty-three
years until her death in 1905. From the date
of her election she was appointed by her colleagues to
act as convener of some of their most important committees,
and in 1900 was unanimously elected the
chairman of the board; she retained this most honourable
and responsible post until the end of her
life.</p>

<p>The connection between the election of the ladies
just mentioned&mdash;and other instances might be added&mdash;with
the suffrage movement is strongly indicated by
the fact that they were, without exception, the leading
personal representatives of the suffrage movement in
the various places in which they respectively lived.
Miss Garrett and Miss Davies, as just described, helped to
organise the suffrage petition, which they handed to
Mr. Mill in 1866; Miss Becker was the head and front
of the suffrage movement in Manchester, and Miss
Flora Stevenson in Edinburgh. These ladies had taken
an active part in starting the women's suffrage societies
in their own towns. Five important societies came
into existence almost simultaneously in London,
Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol, and Birmingham, and
as they almost immediately devised a plan for combining
individual responsibility with united action, they
formed the nucleus of the National Union of Women's
Suffrage Societies, which has become the largest organisation
of the kind in the United Kingdom, and in October
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>1911 numbered 305 societies, a number which is constantly
and rapidly increasing.</p>

<p>With the suffrage work carried on by the societies,
other work for improving the legal status of women,
resisting encroachments upon their constitutional
liberties, and improving their means of education went
on with vigour, sobriety, and enthusiasm; these
qualities were combined in a remarkable degree, and
were beyond all praise. It has been remarked that
the successful conduct of every great change needs the
combination of the spirit of order with the spirit of
audacity. It was the good fortune of the women's
movement in England to secure both these. The
suffrage societies from the first saw the necessity of
keeping to suffrage work only; but the same individuals
in a different capacity were labouring with heroic
persistence and untiring zeal to lift up the conditions of
women's lives in other ways; thus to Mrs. Jacob Bright,
Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy, Mrs. Duncan M'Laren, and
Mrs. Pochin, we owe the first Married Women's Property
Act, and also the Guardianship of Children Act; to
Mrs. Bodichon and Miss Davies, Henry Sidgwick and
Russell Gurney, the opening of university education to
women; to Miss Garrett (now Mrs. Anderson), Dr.
Elizabeth Blackwell, and Miss Jex Blake, the opening
of the medical profession; to Mrs. Josephine Butler,
and Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon Amos, Sir James Stanfeld,
and Mr. James Stuart, the repeal of the Contagious
Diseases Acts (passed in 1866 and 1868); to Mrs. William
Grey, Miss Sherriff and Miss Gurney, the creation of
good secondary schools for girls. I am well aware
that in this bald recital I have omitted the names of
many noble, conscientious, and self-sacrificing workers
for the great causes to which they had devoted themselves;
I cannot even attempt to make my list exhaustive;
I have but selected from a very large number,
all ardent suffragists, a few names that stand out preeminently
in my memory among the glorious company
whose efforts laid the foundations on which we at the
present day are still building the superstructure of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>equal opportunity and equal justice for women and
men.</p>

<p>As an illustration of how the tone has changed in
regard to the personal and proprietary rights of women
I can give a little story which fell within my own experience.
In the 'seventies I was staying with my
father at a time when he had convened in his house a
meeting of Liberal electors of East Suffolk. We were
working then for a Married Women's Property Bill. The
first Act passed in 1870 gave a married woman the
right to possess her <em>earnings</em>, but not any other property.
I had petition forms with me, and thought the "Liberal"
meeting would afford me a good opportunity of getting
signatures to it. So I took it round and explained its
aim to the quite average specimens of the Liberal
British farmer. "Am I to understand you, ma'am,
that if this Bill passes, and my wife have a matter of a
hundred pound left to her, I should have to <em>ask</em> her for
it?" said one of them. The idea appeared monstrous
that a man could not take his wife's &pound;100 without even
going through the form of asking her for it.</p>

<p>But we were making way steadily. It is true that
Mr. Mill was not re-elected in 1868, but Mr. Jacob Bright
succeeded him as the leader in the House of Commons
of the women's suffrage movement. The second
reading of his, the first Women's Suffrage Bill, was
carried on May 4, 1870, by 124 to 91. Further progress
was, however, prevented, mainly in consequence
of the opposition of the Government, and on the motion
to go into committee on May 12, the Bill was defeated
by 220 to 94.</p>

<p>From the beginning women's suffrage had never been
a party question. In the first division, that on Mr.
Mill's Amendment to the Reform Bill, the 73 members
who voted for women's suffrage included about 10
Conservatives, and one of them, the <abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> Russell
Gurney, Q.C., Recorder of London, was one of the
tellers in the division. The great bulk of the supporters
of the principle of women's suffrage were then and
still are Liberals and Radicals, but from the outset we
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>have always had an influential group of Conservative
supporters. And it is indicative of the general growth
of the movement that among the large majority secured
for the second reading of Sir George Kemp's Bill in
May 5, 1911, 79 were Conservatives, a number in
excess of the total of those who supported Mr. Mill's
amendment in 1867. Sir Stafford Northcote (afterwards
Lord Iddesleigh) was among the friends of women's
suffrage, and so was Sir Algernon Borthwick (afterwards
Lord Glenesk), the proprietor and editor of <cite>The Morning
Post</cite>. Support from the Conservative side of the house
was greatly encouraged in 1873 by a letter written by
Mr. Disraeli in reply to a memorial signed by over
11,000 women. The memorial had been forwarded by
Mr. William Gore Langton, M.P., and was thus acknowledged:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Gore Langton</span>,&mdash;I was much honoured by receiving
from your hands the memorial signed by 11,000 women of
England&mdash;among them some illustrious names&mdash;thanking me
for my services in attempting to abolish the anomaly that the
Parliamentary franchise attached to a household or property
qualification, when possessed by a woman, should not be exercised,
though in all matters of local government when similarly
qualified she exercises this right. As I believe this anomaly
to be injurious to the best interests of the country, I trust to see
it removed by the wisdom of Parliament.&mdash;Yours sincerely,</p>

<p class="quotsig">
"<span class="smcap">B. Disraeli</span>."</p></div>

<p>This was written in 1873 in immediate prospect of
the dissolution of Parliament, which took place in
February 1874, and placed Mr. Disraeli in power for
the first time.</p>

<p>These were days of active propaganda for all the
suffrage societies. A hundred meetings were held on
the first six months of 1873, a large number for that
time, though it would be considered nothing now. All
the experienced political men who supported women's
suffrage told us that when the 1874 Parliament came to
an end a change of Government was highly probable, a
new Liberal Government would be in power, and would
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>certainly deal with the question of representation&mdash;that
then would be the great opportunity, the psychological
moment, for the enfranchisement of women.
The agricultural labourers were about to be enfranchised
and the claim of women to share in the benefits of
representative government was at least as good, and
would certainly be listened to. With these hopes we
approached the election of 1880.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>
<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="3">III</abbr><br />

<small>THROWING THE WOMEN OVERBOARD IN 1884</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"We have filled the well-fed with good things, and the hungry
we have sent empty away."&mdash;From the <cite>Politician's Magnificat</cite>.</p></div>


<p>The year 1880 opened cheerfully for suffragists. There
was a series of great demonstrations of women only,
beginning with one in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester,
in February. The first little bit of practical success
too within the United Kingdom came this year, for
suffrage was extended to women in the Isle of Man.
At first it was given only to women freeholders, but after
a few years' experience of its entirely successful operation
all feeling of opposition to it died away, and it was
extended to women householders. The representative
system of the Isle of Man is one of the oldest in the
world, and the House of Keys is of even greater antiquity
than the House of Commons.</p>

<p>The general election took place in March and April
1880, and the Liberals were returned to power with a
large majority. Mr. Gladstone became Prime Minister,
and it was well known that the extension of Household
Suffrage in the counties would be an important feature
in the programme of the new Government. Mr. Goschen
declined to join Mr. Gladstone's Government, because
he was opposed to the extension of the Parliamentary
franchise to the agricultural labourers. It is strange
how the whirligig of time brings about its revenges.
Mr. Goschen held out to the last against the enfranchisement
of the agricultural labourers, but after the election
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>of 1906 he publicly congratulated a meeting of Unionist
Free Traders on "the magnificent stand the agricultural
labourers had made for Free Trade!" If his counsels
had prevailed in 1880, not one of these men would have
had a vote and could have made a stand for Free Trade
or anything else. But in politics memories are short,
and no one reminded Lord Goschen, as he had then became,
of his stand against the labourers' vote a few
years earlier.</p>

<p>As the time approached when the Government of
1880 would introduce their Bill to extend household
suffrage to counties, the exertions of the women's
suffragists were redoubled. One of the methods of
propaganda adopted was the bringing forward of resolutions
favourable to women's suffrage at the meetings
and representative gatherings of political associations
of both the great parties.</p>

<p>Resolutions favourable to an extension of the Parliamentary
suffrage to women were carried at the Parliamentary
Reform Congress at Leeds in October 1883, at
the National Liberal Federation at Bristol in 1883, at
the National Reform Union, Manchester, January 1884,
at the National Union of Conservative Associations
(Scotland) at Glasgow in 1887, at the National Union
of Conservative and Constitutional Associations' Annual
Conference (Oxford) 1887, and so on yearly, or at very
frequent intervals, down to the present time.<a name="Anchor-17" id="Anchor-17"></a><a href="#Footnote-17" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 17.">[17]</a></p>

<p>At the Reform Conference at Leeds in 1883, presided
over by Mr. John Morley, and attended by 2000 delegates
from all parts of the country, it was moved by Dr.
Crosskey of Birmingham, and seconded by Mr. Walter
M'Laren, to add to the resolution supporting household
suffrage in the counties the following rider:&mdash;"<em>That in
the opinion of this meeting, any measure for the extension
of the suffrage should confer the franchise on women who,
possessing the qualifications which entitle men to vote, have
now the right of voting in all matters of local government.</em>"</p>

<p>It was pointed out by Mr. M'Laren (now a member of
the House of Commons and one of our most valued
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>supporters) that in the previous session a memorial
signed by 110 members of Parliament, of whom the
chairman, Mr. John Morley, was one, had been handed
to Mr. Gladstone, to the effect that no measure for
the extension of the franchise would be satisfactory
unless it included women. Mrs. Cobden Unwin and Mrs.
Helen Clark, the daughters respectively of Richard
Cobden and John Bright, spoke in support of the rider,
which was carried by a very large majority. But when
the Reform Bill of 1884 came before the House of
Commons it was found that the inclusion of women
within the Bill had an inexorable opponent in the
Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone. He did not oppose
Women's Suffrage in principle. In 1871 he had taken
part in a woman's suffrage debate in the House of
Commons and had said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"So far as I am able to form an opinion of the general tone
and opinion of our law in these matters, where the peculiar
relations of men and women are concerned, that law does less
than justice to women, and great mischief, misery, and scandal
result from that state of things in many of the occurrences and
events of life.... If it should be found possible to arrange a
safe and well-adjusted alteration of the law as to political power,
the man who shall attain that object, and who shall see his
purpose carried onward to its consequences in a more just
arrangement of the provisions of other laws bearing upon the
condition and welfare of women, will, in my opinion, be a real
benefactor to his country."</p></div>

<p>It is somewhat difficult to deduce from this statement
the condition of the mind from which it proceeded; but
it was generally thought to mean that Mr. Gladstone
believed that women had suffered practical grievances
owing to their exclusion from representation, and that
it would be for their benefit and for the welfare of the
country if a moderate measure of women's suffrage
could be passed into law. When, however, it came to
moving a definite amendment to include women in the
Reform Bill of 1884, the most vehement opposition
was offered by Mr. Gladstone; not indeed even then
to the principle of women's suffrage, but to its being
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>added to the Bill before the House. The idea that
household suffrage was not democratic had not then
been invented. The Prime Minister's line was that
the Government had introduced into the Bill "as much
as it could safely carry." The unfortunate nautical
metaphor was repeated again and again: "Women's
suffrage would overweight the ship." "The cargo
which the vessel carries is, in our opinion, a cargo as
large as she can safely carry." He accordingly threw
the women overboard. So different are the traditions of
the politician from the heroic traditions of the seaman
who, by duty and instinct alike, is always prompted
in moments of danger to save the women first.</p>

<p>Comment has been made on the curious ambiguity
of the language in which Mr. Gladstone had supported
the principle of women's suffrage in 1871. There was
no ambiguity in what he said about it in 1884. In
language perfectly plain and easily understood he said,
"I offer it [Mr. Woodall's Women's Suffrage Amendment]
the strongest opposition in my power, and I must disclaim
and renounce responsibility for the measure [<i>i.e.</i>
the Government Reform Bill] should my honourable
friend succeed in inducing the committee to adopt the
amendment." This was on June 10, 1884. The decision
resulted in a crushing defeat for women's suffrage.
The numbers were 271 against Mr. Woodall's amendment
to 135 for it. Among the 271 were 104 Liberals
who were pledged supporters of suffrage. Three
members of the Government, who were known friends
of women's suffrage, did not vote at all, but walked out
of the House before the division. To one of them
Mr. Gladstone wrote the next day pointing out that
to abstain from supporting the Government in a critical
division was equivalent to a resignation of office. But
he added that a crisis in foreign affairs was approaching
which might be of the deepest importance to "the
character and honour of the country and to the law,
the concord and possibly even the peace of Europe.
It would be most unfortunate were the minds of men
at such a juncture to be disturbed by the resignation of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>a cabinet minister and of two other gentlemen holding
offices of great importance." He, therefore, was proposing
to his colleagues that he should be authorised
to request the three gentlemen referred to, to do the
Government the favour of retaining their respective
offices. As they had never resigned them, this petition
that they should withdraw their resignation seemed a
little superfluous.</p>

<p>The blow to women's suffrage dealt by the defeat of
Mr. Woodall's Amendment to the 1884 Reform Bill was
a heavy one, and was deeply felt by the whole movement.
But though fatal to immediate Parliamentary
success, the events of 1884 strengthened our cause in
the country. Everything which draws public attention
to the subject of representation and to the political
helplessness of the unrepresented makes people ask
themselves more and more "Why are women excluded?"
"If representative government is good for men, why
should it be bad for women?" "Why do members of
Parliament lightly break their promises to non-voters?"
It will be remembered that the Reform Bill of 1884
was not finally passed until late in the autumn. While
the final stages of the measure were still pending, the
Trades Union Congress meeting at Aberdeen passed a
resolution, with only three dissentients, "<em>That this Congress
is strongly of opinion that the franchise should be
extended to women rate-payers.</em>" Thus at that critical
juncture the working men's most powerful organisation
stood by the women whom the Liberal party had betrayed.</p>

<p>New political forces made their appearance very
soon after the passing of the Reform Act of 1884, which
have had an almost immeasurable effect in promoting
the women's suffrage cause. The Reform Act had
contained a provision to render paid canvassing illegal,
and in 1883 Sir Henry James (afterwards Lord James
of Hereford) had introduced, on behalf of the Government,
and carried a very stringent Corrupt Practices
Act. Its main feature was to place a definite limit,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>proportioned to the number of electors in each constituency,
upon the authorised expenditure of the
candidates. Political agents and party managers had
been accustomed to employ a large number of men as
paid canvassers, and to perform the great amount of
clerical and other drudgery connected with electoral
organisation. The law now precluded paid canvassing
altogether, and, by limiting the authorised expenditure,
severely restrained the number of people who could be
employed on ordinary business principles, of so much
cash for so much work. But the work had got to be
done, or elections would be lost. It was necessary,
therefore, to look round and see how and by whom the
work could be performed now that the fertilising shower
of gold was withdrawn. The brilliant idea occurred
to Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Algernon Borthwick,
and others to obtain for their own party the services of
ladies. This was the germ of the organisation which
soon became known by the name of the Primrose
League. Ladies were encouraged to take an active
part in the electoral organisation; they canvassed,
they spoke, they looked up "removals," and "out
voters," and did all kinds of important political work
without fee or reward of any kind, and, therefore,
without adding to candidates' expenses. The ladies
were highly successful from the very first. They
showed powers of work and of political organisation
which heretofore had been unsuspected. Their political
friends were delighted. The anger of their political
opponents was unmeasured. It was then that the
expression "filthy witches" was used in relation to
the Dames of the Primrose League by an excited member
of the Liberal party, who attributed his defeat in a
contested election to their machinations. But anger
quickly gave way to a more practical frame of mind.
If the Conservatives could make good use of women
for electoral work, Liberals could do so also and would
not be left behind. The Women's Liberal Federation<a name="Anchor-18" id="Anchor-18"></a><a href="#Footnote-18" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 18.">[18]</a>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>was formed in 1886 under the Presidency of Mrs.
Gladstone, supported on the executive committee
by other ladies, mainly the wives of the Liberal leaders.
The idea of the officers of this association from the
outset was that the object of its existence was to promote
the interests of the Liberal party, or, as Mrs. Gladstone
once put it, "to help our husbands." Events, however,
soon followed which created great dissatisfaction among
the rank and file with this limited range of political
activity. There were many women in the association
who desired not merely to help their party but to
educate it, by promoting Liberal principles, and of these
the extension of representative government to women
was one of the most important.</p>

<p>The Federation was formed in 1886; the very next
year a women's suffrage resolution was moved at the
annual council meeting, but was defeated. The same
thing happened in 1888 and 1889, the influence of the
official Liberal ladies being used against it. In 1890,
however, a women's suffrage resolution was carried by
a large majority. The earnest suffragists in the Federation
continued their work, and in 1892 they became so
powerful that fifteen of the members of the executive
committee, who had opposed suffrage being taken up
as part of the work of the Federation, did not offer
themselves for re-election. Mrs. Gladstone, however,
did not withdraw, and continued to hold the office of
president. The retiring members of the executive
took a considerable number of the local associations
with them, and in 1893 these formed a new organisation
called the National Women's Liberal Association.
Some of those who formed this seceding Women's
Liberal Association were definitely opposed to Women's
Suffrage; others thought that while in principle the
enfranchisement of women was right, the time had not
come for its practical adoption. In practice, however,
the Women's Liberal Federation has stood for suffrage
with ever-increasing firmness since 1890, while the
Women's Liberal Association has continued to oppose it.</p>

<p>The formation of women's political associations was
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>encouraged by party leaders of all shades of politics.
There is probably not a single party leader, however
strongly he may oppose the extension of the suffrage
to women, who has not encouraged the active participation
of women in electoral work. The Liberal party
issues a paper of printed directions to those who are
asking to do electoral work in its support. The first
of these directions is:&mdash;<em>Make all possible use of every
available woman in your locality.</em></p>

<p>Suffragists contend that a party which can do this
cannot long maintain that women are by the mere fact
of their sex unfit to be entrusted with a Parliamentary
vote.</p>

<p>Even as long ago as his first Midlothian campaign,
and before any definite political organisations for
women existed, Mr. Gladstone had urged the women
of his future constituency to come out and bear their
part in the coming electoral struggle. Speaking to a
meeting of women in Dalkeith in 1879 he said:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"Therefore, I think in appealing to you ungrudgingly to open
your own feelings and bear your own part in a political crisis
like this, we are making no inappropriate demand, but are
beseeching you to fulfil the duties which belong to you, which
so far from involving any departure from your character as
women, are associated with the fulfilment of that character and
the performance of those duties, the neglect of which would
in future years be a source of pain and mortification, and the
accomplishment of which would serve to gild your future years
with sweet remembrances and to warrant you in hoping that
each in your own place and sphere has raised your voice for
justice, and has striven to mitigate the sorrows and misfortunes
of mankind."</p></div>

<p>In less ornate language Mr. Asquith, in January 1910,
thanked the women of Fife for the aid they had given
him and his cause during the election, and said that
"their healthy influence on the masculine members
of the community had had not a little to do with
keeping things in a satisfactory condition."</p>

<p>The organised political work of women has grown
since 1884, and has become so valuable that none of the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>parties can afford to do without it or to alienate it.
Short of the vote itself this is one of the most important
political weapons which can possibly have been put
into our hands. At the outset, while the women's
political societies were still young, and were hardly
conscious of their power, the women's suffrage movement
benefited greatly by their existence. If the
Women's Liberal Federation had existed in 1884, the
104 Liberals who voted against Mr. Woodall's amendment
would have probably decided that honesty was
the best policy. In 1892 Sir Albert Rollit introduced a
Women's Suffrage Bill, as nearly as possible on the lines
of the Conciliation Bill of 1910-11. Before the second
reading great efforts were made by the Liberal party
machine to secure a crushing defeat for this Bill on its
second reading: a confidential circular was sent out
to all Liberal candidates in the Home Counties advising
them not to allow Liberal women to speak on their
platforms lest they should advocate "female suffrage."
In addition to this, Mr. Gladstone was induced to write
a letter addressed to Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P., against
the Bill, in which he departed from his previous view
that the political work done by women would be quite
consistent with womanly character and duties, and
would "gild their future years with sweet remembrances."
He now said that voting would, he feared,
"trespass upon their delicacy, their purity, their refinement,
the elevation of their whole nature."</p>

<p>In addition to all this a whip was sent out signed by
twenty members of Parliament, ten from each side of
the House, earnestly beseeching members to be in their
places when Sir Albert Rollit's Bill came on and to
vote against the second reading. But when the division
came, notwithstanding all the unusual efforts that had
been made, it was only defeated by 23. A general
election was known to be not very far off, and members
who were expecting zealous and efficient support from
women in their constituencies did not care to alienate
it by denying to women the smallest and most elementary
of political privileges. In surprising numbers
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>(as compared with 1884) they stood to their guns, and
though they did not save the Bill, the balance against
it was so small that it was an earnest of future victory.
This division in 1892 was the last time a Women's
Suffrage Bill was defeated on a straight issue in the
House of Commons. Mr. Faithfull Begg's Bill in 1897
was carried on second reading by 228 votes to 157.
After this date direct frontal attacks on the principle
of women's suffrage were avoided in the House of
Commons. The anti-suffragists in Parliament used every
possible trick and stratagem to prevent the subject
being discussed and divided on in the House. In this
they were greatly helped by Mr. Labouchere, to whom
it was a congenial task to shelve the women's suffrage
question. On one occasion he and his little group of
supporters talked for hours about a Bill dealing with
"verminous persons," because it stood before a
Suffrage Bill, and he thus succeeded in preventing our
Bill from coming before the House.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>
<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="4">IV</abbr><br />

<small>WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE IN GREATER BRITAIN</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p class="hang">"Wake up, Mother Country."&mdash;Speech by King George <abbr title="the fifth">V.</abbr> when
Prince of Wales.</p></div>


<p>The debate on Sir Albert Rollit's Bill in 1892 brought
out a full display of oratorical power from all quarters
of the House, both for and against women's suffrage.
Mr. James Bryce, Mr. Asquith, and Sir Henry James
(afterwards Lord James) spoke against the Bill. Mr.
Balfour, Mr. (now Lord) Courtney, and Mr. Wyndham
supported it. When Mr. Bryce spoke he used the timid
argument that women's suffrage was an untried
experiment. "It is a very bold experiment," he said;
"our colonies are democratic in the highest degree;
why do they not try it?" and again, "This is an
experiment so large and bold that it ought to be tried by
some other country first." Mr. Asquith, in the course
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>of his speech, said much the same thing: "We have
no experience to guide us one way or the other." Mr.
Goldwin Smith, an extra-Parliamentary opponent of
women's suffrage, pointed, in an article, to its solitary
example in the State of Wyoming, where it had been
adopted in 1869, and asked why, if suffrage had
been a success in Wyoming, its example had not
been followed by other states immediately abutting on
its borders.</p>

<p>Now it has frequently been noticed that when this
line of argument is adopted it seems to be a sort of
"mascot" for women's suffrage. When Mr. Bryce
inquired in 1892 "why our great democratic colonies
had not tried women's suffrage," his speech was followed
in 1893 by the adoption of women's suffrage in New
Zealand and in South Australia. When Mr. Goldwin
Smith asked why the States which were in nearest
neighbourhood to Wyoming had not followed her
example, three States in this position, namely Colorado
in 1893, Utah in 1895, and Idaho in 1896, very rapidly
did so. When Sir F. S. Powell, in 1907, said in the
House of Commons that no country in Europe had
ever ventured on the dangerous experiment of enfranchising
its women, women's suffrage was granted
in Finland the same year, and in Norway the year
following. When Mrs. Humphry Ward wrote in 1908
that our cause in the United States was "in process of
defeat and extinction," this was followed by the most
important suffrage victories ever won in America&mdash;the
States of Washington in 1910, and California in
1911.</p>

<p>The question arises why so well informed and careful
a political controversialist as Mr. James Bryce spoke as
he did in 1892 of the fact that none of our great democratic
colonies had adopted women's suffrage, in evident
ignorance of the fact that two at any rate were on the
point of doing so. The answer is probably to be found
in the attitude of the anti-suffrage press. No body of
political controversialists are so badly served by their
own press as the anti-suffragists. The anti-suffrage
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>press appears to act on the assumption that if they say
nothing about a political event it is the same as if it had
not happened. Therefore, while they give prominence
to any circumstances which they imagine likely to be
injurious to suffrage, they either say nothing about
those facts which indicate its growing force and volume,
or record them in such a manner that they escape the
observation of the general reader. The result is that
only the suffragists, who are in constant communication
with their comrades in various parts of the world
and also have their own papers, are kept duly informed,
not only of what has happened, but of what is likely
to happen. Mr. Bryce cannot have known of the
imminence of the success of women's suffrage in New
Zealand and South Australia in 1892. Mrs. Humphry
Ward did not know in February 1909 that women's
suffrage had actually been carried in Victoria, and
had received the royal assent in 1908. She could have
known very little of the real strength of the suffrage
movement in the United States, when she said it was
virtually dead, just at the moment when it was about
to give the most unmistakable proofs of energy and
vigour. For all this ignorance the anti-suffrage press
of London is mainly responsible. "Things are what
they are and their consequences will be what they will
be," whether the newspapers print them or not, and
to leave the controversialists on your own side in
ignorance of facts of capital importance is a strange way
of showing political allegiance.<a name="Anchor-19" id="Anchor-19"></a><a href="#Footnote-19" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 19.">[19]</a></p>

<p>It is a mistake to represent that women's suffrage
was brought about in New Zealand suddenly or, as it
were, by accident. The women of New Zealand did not,
as has sometimes been said, wake up one fine morning
in 1893 and find themselves enfranchised. Sustained,
self-sacrificing, painstaking, and well-organised work
for women's suffrage had been going on in the Colony
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>for many years.<a name="Anchor-20" id="Anchor-20"></a><a href="#Footnote-20" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 20.">[20]</a> The germ of it may be traced even
as early as 1843, and many of the most distinguished
men whose names are connected with New Zealand
history as true empire-builders have been identified
with the movement, including Mr. John Ballance, Sir
Julius Vogel, Sir R. Stout, Sir John Hall, and Sir
George Grey. It is curious that Mr. Richard Seddon,
under whose Premiership women's suffrage was finally
carried, was not at that time (1893) a believer in it.
He was a Thomas who had to see before he could believe,
but when he had once had experience of women's
suffrage, he was unwearied in proclaiming his confidence
in it. When he was in England in 1902 for King
Edward's Coronation he hardly ever spoke in public
without bearing his testimony to the success of women's
suffrage. Much good seed had been sown in New Zealand
by Mrs. Müller, an English lady, who landed in Nelson
in 1850. One of her articles, signed "Femina" (she
was obliged to preserve her anonymity for reasons of
domestic tranquillity), won the attention of John Stuart
Mill, and drew from him a most encouraging letter,
and the gift of his book <cite>The Subjection of Women</cite>.
Mrs. Müller died in 1902, and thus had the opportunity
of seeing in operation for nearly ten years the successful
operation of the reform for which she had been one of
the earliest workers. An American lady, Mrs. Mary
Clement Leavitt, visited New Zealand in 1885 on behalf
of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Mrs.
Leavitt was a great organiser and arranged the whole
of the work of the Temperance Union in definite "Departments,"
and a general superintendent was appointed
to each. There was a Franchise Department, the
general superintendent of which was Mrs. Sheppard,
who, from 1887, became an indefatigable and, at the
same time, a cautious and sensible worker for the extension
of the Parliamentary franchise to women.
She was in communication with Sir John Hall and other
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>Parliamentary leaders, and kept in close touch with
the whole movement until it was successful.</p>

<p>Just as it is now in England with us, differences arose
among New Zealand suffragists as to how much suffrage
women ought to have, or at any rate for how much
would it be wise to ask, and the parties were called
the "half loafers" and the "whole loafers." The
"no bread" party watched these differences just as
they do in England, and tried unsuccessfully to profit
by them. In the debate on Sir John Hall's Women's
Suffrage resolution in 1890, Mr. W. P. Reeves, so long
known in England as the Agent-General for New
Zealand, and later as the Director of the London School
of Economics, and also as an excellent friend of women's
suffrage, announced himself to be a "half loafer";
indeed he advocated the restriction of the franchise to
such women, over twenty-one years of age, who had
passed the matriculation examination of the university.
There is an Arabic proverb to the effect that the world
is divided into three classes&mdash;"the immovable, the
movable, and those who actually move." It is unwise
to despair of the conversion of any anti-suffragist unless
he has proved himself to belong to the "immovables."
In 1890 Mr. Reeves, now so good a suffragist, had only
advanced to the point of advocating the enfranchisement
of university women. His proposal for a high educational
suffrage test for women did not meet with
support. It was rejected by more robust suffragists
as "not even half a loaf, only a ginger nut." The
anti-suffragists used the same arguments which they
use with us. They professed themselves to be intimately
acquainted with the views of the Almighty on the
question of women voting. "It was contrary to the
ordinance of God"; women politicians were represented
as driving a man from his home because it would be
infested "with noisy and declamatory women." After
the Bill had passed both Houses a solemn petition was
presented by anti-suffragists, who were members of
the Legislative Council, asking the Governor to withhold
his assent on the ground that "it would seriously
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>affect the rights of property and embarrass the finances
of the colony, thereby injuriously affecting the public
creditor." Others protested that it was self-evident,
that women's suffrage must lead to domestic discord
and the neglect of home life. Of course all the anti-suffragists
were certain that women did not want the
vote, and would not use it even if it were granted to
them.</p>

<p>The French gentleman who called himself Max O'Rell
was touring New Zealand at the time, and deplored
that one of the fairest spots on God's earth was going
to be turned into a howling wilderness by women's
suffrage. Mr. Goldwin Smith wrote that he gave
women's suffrage ten years in New Zealand, and by
that time it would have wrought such havoc with the
home and domestic life that the best minds in the
country would be devising means of getting rid of it.
A New Zealand gentleman, named Bakewell, wrote an
article in <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite> for February 1894, containing
a terrible jeremiad about the melancholy results
to be expected in the Dominion from women's suffrage.
The last words of his article were, "We shall probably
for some years to come be a dreadful object lesson to
the rest of the British Empire." This was the prophecy.
What have the facts been? New Zealand has become
an object-lesson&mdash;an object-lesson of faithful membership
of the Imperial group, a daughter State of which
the mother country is intensely proud. Does not everybody
know that New Zealand is prosperous and happy
and loyal to the throne and race to which she owes
her origin.<a name="Anchor-21" id="Anchor-21"></a><a href="#Footnote-21" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 21.">[21]</a> New Zealand was the first British Colony
to enfranchise her women, and was also the first British
Colony to send her sons to stand side by side with the
sons of Great Britain in the battlefields of South Africa;
she was also the first British Colony to cable the offer of a
battleship to the mother country in the spring of 1909.
She, with Australia, was the first part of the British
Empire to devise and carry out a truly national system
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>of defence, seeking the advice of the first military
expert of the mother country, Lord Kitchener, to help
them to do it on efficient lines. The women are demanding
that they should do their share in the great
national work of defence by undergoing universal
ambulance training.<a name="Anchor-22" id="Anchor-22"></a><a href="#Footnote-22" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 22.">[22]</a></p>

<p>New Zealand and Australia have, since they adopted
women's suffrage, inaugurated many important social
and economic reforms, among which may be mentioned
wages boards&mdash;the principle of the minimum wage
applied to women as well as to men&mdash;and the establishment
of children's courts for juvenile offenders. They
have also purged their laws of some of the worst of the
enactments injurious to women. If it were needed
to rebut the preposterous nonsense urged by anti-suffragists
against women's suffrage in New Zealand
eighteen years ago, it is sufficient to quote the unemotional
terms of the cable which appeared from New
Zealand in <cite>The Times</cite> of July 28, 1911:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"Parliament was opened to-day. Lord Islington, the Governor,
in his speech, congratulated the Dominion on its continued
prosperity. The increase in the material well-being of the
people, was, he said, encouraging, and there was every reason
to expect a continuance and even an augmentation of the prosperity
of the trade and industry of the Dominion.... The
results of registration under the universal defence training
scheme were satisfactory. The spirit in which this call for
patriotism had been met was highly commendable."</p></div>

<p>The testimony concerning the practical working of
women's suffrage in Australia and New Zealand is all
of one kind. It may be summarised in a single sentence,
"Not one of the evils so confidently predicted of it
has actually happened." The effect on home life is
universally said to have been good. The birth-rate in
New Zealand has steadily increased since 1899, and it
has now, next to Australia, the lowest infantile mortality
in the world. In South Australia, where women have
been enfranchised since 1893, the infantile death-rate
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>has also been reduced from 130 in the 1000 to half
that number. Our own anti-suffragists are quite
capable of representing that this argument means that
we are so foolish as to suppose that if a mother drops
a paper into a ballot-box every few years she thereby
prolongs the life of her infant. Of course we do nothing
of the kind; but we do say that to give full citizenship
to women deepens in them the sense of responsibility,
and they will be more likely to apply to their duties a
quickened intelligence and a higher sense of the importance
of the work entrusted to them as women.
The free woman makes the best wife and the most
careful mother.</p>

<p>The confident prediction that women when enfranchised
would not take the trouble to record their
votes has been falsified. The figures given in the
official publication, <cite>The New Zealand Year Book</cite>, are as
follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="center">
<table class="bordered" border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" summary="">
<tr><td class="tdc" rowspan="2">Date.</td>
    <td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">Men.</td>
    <td class="tdc smcap" colspan="2">Women.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc">Electoral Roll.</td>
    <td class="tdc">Actually Voted.</td>
    <td class="tdc">Electoral Roll.</td>
    <td class="tdc">Actually Voted.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bb0">1893</td>
    <td class="tdr bb0">193,536</td>
    <td class="tdr bb0">129,792</td>
    <td class="tdr bb0">109,461</td>
    <td class="tdr bb0">90,290</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bt0 bb0">1896</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">196,925</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">149,471</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">142,305</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">108,783</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bt0 bb0">1899</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">210,529</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">159,780</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">163,215</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">119,550</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bt0 bb0">1902</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">229,845</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">180,294</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">185,944</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">138,565</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bt0 bb0">1905</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">263,597</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">221,611</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">212,876</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0 bb0">175,046</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdc bt0">1908</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0">294,073</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0">238,538</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0">242,930</td>
    <td class="tdr bt0">190,114</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p>This table shows that men and women who are on
the electoral roll vote in almost the same proportion.
The number of votes actually polled compared with
the number on the register is, of course, to some extent
affected by the number of constituencies in which there
is no contest, or in which the result is regarded as
a foregone conclusion; but this consideration affects
both sexes alike. It is impossible for reasons of space
to enter in detail in this little book upon the history
in each of the Australian States of the adoption of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>women's suffrage. But it is well known that every one
of the States forming the Commonwealth of Australia
has now enfranchised its women, and that one of the
first acts of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1902
was to grant the suffrage to women. The complete list
of dates of women's enfranchisement in New Zealand
and Australia will be found in <cite>The Brief Review of the
Women's Suffrage Movement</cite>, which concludes this
little book.</p>

<p>When the Premiers and other political leaders from
the overseas Dominions of Great Britain were in
London for the Coronation and Imperial Conference of
1911, the representatives of Australia and New Zealand
frequently expressed both in public and in private
their entire satisfaction with the results of women's
suffrage. Mr. Fisher, the Premier of the Commonwealth,
constantly spoke in this sense: "There is no
Australian politician who would nowadays dare to
get up at a meeting and declare himself an enemy....
It has had most beneficial results.... He had not
the slightest doubt that women's votes had had a good
effect on social legislation.... The Federal Parliament
took a strong stand upon the remuneration of women,
and the minimum wage which was laid down applied
equally to women and men for the same work" (<cite>Manchester
Guardian</cite>, June 3, 1911). On another occasion
Mr. Fisher said that so far from women's suffrage
causing any disunion between men and women, "the
interest which men took in women's affairs when women
had got the vote was wonderful" (<cite>Manchester Guardian</cite>,
June 10, 1911). Sir William Lyne, Premier of New
South Wales, said: "When the women were enfranchised
in Australia they proceeded at each election to purify
their Parliament, and they had gone on doing so, and
now he was proud to say their Parliament was one of
the model Parliaments of the world" (<cite>Manchester
Guardian</cite>, August 1, 1911). The <abbr title="Honourable">Hon.</abbr> John Murray of
Victoria and the <abbr title="Honourable">Hon.</abbr> A. A. Kirkpatrick spoke in the
same sense. Indeed the evidence favourable to the
working of women's suffrage is overwhelming, and is
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>given not only by men who have always supported it,
but by those who formerly opposed it, and have had
the courage to acknowledge that as the result of experience
they have changed their views. Among these
may be mentioned Sir Edmund Barton, the first Premier
of the Commonwealth, and the late Sir Thomas Bent,
the Premier of Victoria, under whose administration
women were enfranchised in that State. Why appeal
to other witnesses when both Houses of the Commonwealth
Parliament in November 1910 unanimously
adopted the following resolution:&mdash;</p>

<p>"(i.) That this <span class="size2">{</span> <sup>House</sup> <span class="ml25"><sub>Senate</sub></span> <span class="size2">}</span> is of opinion that the extension
of the Suffrage to the women of Australia for States
and Commonwealth Parliaments, on the same terms as
men, has had the most beneficial results. It has led
to the more orderly conduct of Elections, and at the
last Federal Elections the women's vote in the majority
of the States showed a greater proportionate increase
than that cast by men. It has given a greater prominence
to legislation particularly affecting women
and children, although the women have not taken up
such questions to the exclusion of others of wider significance.
In matters of Defence and Imperial concern,
they have proved themselves as far-seeing and discriminating
as men. Because the reform has brought
nothing but good, though disaster was freely prophesied,
we respectfully urge that all Nations enjoying Representative
Government would be well advised in granting
votes to women."</p>

<p>With all this wealth of testimony rebutting from
practical experience almost every objection urged
against women's suffrage, it is impossible to exaggerate
the value to the movement here of the example of
Australia and New Zealand. There are few families
in the United Kingdom that have not ties of kindred
or of friendship with Australasia. The men and women
there are of our own race and traditions, starting from
the same stock, owning the same allegiance, acknowledging
the same laws, speaking the same language,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>nourished mentally, morally, and spiritually from the
same sources. We visit them and they visit us; and
when their women return to what they fondly term
"home," although they may have been born and
brought up under the Southern Cross, they naturally
ask why they should be put into a lower political status
in Great Britain than in the land of their birth? What
have they done to lose one of the most elementary
guarantees of liberty and citizenship? As the ties of
a sane and healthy Imperialism draw us closer together
the difference in the political status of women in Great
Britain and her daughter States will become increasingly
indefensible and cannot be long maintained.</p>



<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>
<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="5">V</abbr><br />

<small>THE ANTI-SUFFRAGISTS</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p class="hang">"We enjoy every species of indulgence we can wish for; and
as we are content, we pray that others who are not content
may meet with no relief."&mdash;Burke in House of Commons in
1772 on the Dissenters who petitioned against Dissenters.</p></div>


<p>The first organised opposition by women to women's
suffrage in England dates from 1889, when a number
of ladies, led by Mrs. Humphry Ward, Miss Beatrice
Potter (now Mrs. Sidney Webb), and Mrs. Creighton
appealed in <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite> against the proposed
extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to women.
Looking back now over the years that have passed
since this protest was published, the first thing that
strikes the reader is that some of the most distinguished
ladies who then co-operated with Mrs. Humphry Ward
have ceased to be anti-suffragists, and have become
suffragists. Mrs. Creighton and Mrs. Webb have
joined us; they are not only "movable," but they
have moved, and have given their reasons for changing
their views. Turning from the list of names to the
line of argument adopted against women's suffrage,
we find, on the contrary, no change, no development.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>The ladies who signed <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite> protest
in 1889 were then as now&mdash;and this is the essential
characteristic of the anti-suffrage movement&mdash;completely
in favour of every improvement in the personal,
proprietary, and political status of women that had
already been gained, <em>but against any further extension
of it</em>. <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite> ladies were in 1889
quite in favour of women taking part in all local government
elections, for women's right to do this had been
won in 1870. The protesting ladies said in so many
words "<em>we believe the emancipating process has now
reached the limits fixed by the physical constitution of
women</em>." Less wise than Canute, they appeared to
think they could order the tide of human progress to
stop and that their command would be obeyed. Then,
as now, they protested that the normal experience of
women "does not, and never can, provide them with
such material to form a sound judgment on great
political affairs as men possess," or, as Mrs. Humphry
Ward has more recently expressed it, "the political
ignorance of women is irreparable and is imposed by
nature"; then having proclaimed the inherent incapacity
of women to form a sound judgment on
important political affairs, they proceed to formulate
a judgment on one of the most important issues of
practical politics. Several of the ladies who signed <cite>The
Nineteenth Century</cite> protest in 1889 were at that moment
taking an active part in organising the political work
and influence of women for or against the main political
issue of the day, the granting of Home Rule to Ireland;
and yet they were saying at the same time that women
had not the material to form a sound judgment in
politics. This is, of course, the inherent absurdity of
the whole position of anti-suffrage women. If women
are incapable of forming a sound judgment in grave
political issues, why invite them and urge them to
express an opinion at all? Besides this fundamental
absurdity there is another, secondary to it, but none the
less real. Anti-suffragists, especially anti-suffrage men,
maintain that to take part in the strife and turmoil of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>practical politics is in its essence degrading to women,
and calculated to sully their refinement and purity.
If this, indeed, is so, why invite women into the turmoil?
Why advertise, as the anti-suffragists do, the holding of
classes to train young women to become anti-suffrage
speakers, and thus be able to proclaim on public platforms
that "woman's place is home?" This second
absurdity appears to have occurred to the late editor
of <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite>, Sir James Knowles, for a
note is added to the 1889 protest apologising, as it
were, for the inconsistency of asking women to degrade
themselves by taking part in a public political controversy:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"It is submitted," says this note, "that for once and in
order to save the quiet of Home Life from total disappearance
they should do violence to their natural reticence and signify
publicly and unmistakably their condemnation of the scheme
now threatened."</p></div>

<p>If this note was, as it appears, by the editor, how much
he, too, needed the lesson which Canute gave to his
courtiers. The waves were not to be turned back by a
hundred and odd great ladies doing violence to their
natural reticence and signifying publicly that they
were very well satisfied with things as they were.
"Just for once, in order to save the quiet of home
life from total disappearance," these milk white lambs,
bleating for man's protection, were to cast aside their
timidity and come before the public with a protest
against a further extension of human liberty. The
anti-suffrage protest of 1889 had the effect which
similar protests have ever since had of adding to the
numbers and the activity of the suffragists.</p>

<p>Women anti-suffragists formed themselves into a
society in July 1908 under the leadership of Mrs.
Humphry Ward, and a men's society was shortly
afterwards formed under the chairmanship of the Earl
of Cromer. These two societies were amalgamated
in December 1910. Lord Cromer is the President,
and exerts himself actively in opposition to women's
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>suffrage, and in obtaining funds for the League of which
he is the leader. In the previous spring of 1910 the
Anti-Suffrage League had adopted as part of its programme,
besides the negative object of opposing women's
suffrage, the positive object of encouraging "the
principle of the representation of women on municipal
and other bodies concerned with the domestic and social
affairs of the community." But male anti-suffragists
dwell chiefly on the negative part of their programme.
As a fairly regular reader of the <cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite>
I may say that the advocacy of municipal suffrage and
eligibility for women bears about the same proportion
to the anti-suffrage part of it as Falstaff's bread did
to his sack; it is always one halfpennyworth of bread,
and even that is sometimes absent, to an intolerable
deal of sack.</p>

<p>The English anti-suffragists' combination of opposing
Parliamentary suffrage and supporting municipal
suffrage for women has no counterpart in the United
States. American anti-suffragists are as bitterly opposed
to municipal and school suffrage for women
(where it does not exist) as they are to political suffrage.
In the State of New York, not many years ago, the
Albany Association for Opposing Woman's Suffrage
vehemently resisted the appointment of women on
School Boards and said, "It threatens the home,
threatens the sacredness of the marriage tie, threatens
the Church, and undermines the constitution of our
great Republic." An American senator, not to be outdone,
improved even upon this, and spoke of school
suffrage for women in Massachusetts in the following
terms: "If we make this experiment we shall destroy
the race which will be blasted by the vengeance of
Almighty God." These extravagances do not belong
entirely to the dark ages of the nineteenth century;
only in the summer of 1911 the <em>New York Association
opposed to the extension of the suffrage to women</em> successfully
opposed a Bill to confer the municipal suffrage on
women in Connecticut. This Bill had passed the
Senate and was before the House of Representatives,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>which was immediately besieged by petitions against
the Bill urging all the old arguments with which we are
so familiar in this country against the Parliamentary
suffrage, such as that it was not fair to women that
they should have the municipal vote "thrust upon
them"; that Governments rest on force, and force is
male; that women cannot fight, and therefore should
not vote; that to give the municipal vote to women
would destroy the home, and undermine the foundations
of society.<a name="Anchor-23" id="Anchor-23"></a><a href="#Footnote-23" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 23.">[23]</a></p>

<p>This opposition was successful, and the Bill was defeated
in face of overwhelming evidence derived from
the numerous cases which were quoted of women
exercising the municipal vote, and sitting as members
of local governing bodies without producing any of
the disastrous consequences so confidently predicted.
Where women have the municipal vote there is no opposition
to it in any quarter, because it is overwhelmingly
evident, as Mr. Gladstone once said, that "it has
been productive of much good and no harm whatever."</p>

<p>English suffragists can only heartily rejoice that
English anti-suffragists are so much more intelligent
than those of the United States. It shows that they
are capable of learning from experience. Women have
had the municipal vote in Great Britain since 1870,
and they have voted for Poor Law Guardians and
School Boards (where such still exist) from the same
date. They were rendered eligible for Town and
County Councils in 1907 by an Act passed by Sir Henry
Campbell Bannerman's Government. Suffragists are
far from complaining that anti-suffragists rejoice with
them at these extensions of civic liberty to women.
Though the battle is over and the victory won, it is
very satisfactory to see the good results of women's
suffrage, where it exists, recognised and emphasised
even by anti-suffragists. Mrs. Humphry Ward has
advocated the systematic organisation of the women's
vote in London local elections in order to have increased
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>motive power behind some of her excellent schemes
for making more use of playgrounds for the benefit of
the London children. She has also spoken several
times in public in favour of the increased representation
of women on local government bodies; and has even
gone very near to making a joke on the subject, saying,
in justification of her attitude, "That it was not good to
allow the devil to have all the best tunes," and not wise
for the anti-suffragists to allow the suffragists to claim
a monopoly of ideas and enthusiasm.<a name="Anchor-24" id="Anchor-24"></a><a href="#Footnote-24" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 24.">[24]</a></p>

<p>Still it is rather significant that she comes to the
suffrage camp for the ideas and enthusiasms. Her male
colleagues have not shown themselves very ardent in
the cause of equal rights for women in local government.
In 1898, when the London Borough Councils were established
in the place of the Vestries, an amendment was
moved and carried in the House of Commons rendering
women eligible for the newly created bodies as they
had been on the old ones. When the Bill came to the
House of Lords, this portion of it was vehemently opposed
by the late Lord James of Hereford (afterwards
one of the vice-presidents of the Anti-Suffrage League),
and his opposition was successful, notwithstanding a
powerful and eloquent speech by the late Lord Salisbury,
then Prime Minister, in support of the eligibility of
women on the new Borough Councils. Again, when
in 1907 the Bill rendering women eligible for Town and
County Councils reached the House of Lords, it had no
more sincere and ardent opponent than Lord James.
He saw its bearing upon the question of women's
suffrage, and the absurdity involved in a state of the
law which allows a woman to be a Town or County
Councillor, or even a Mayor, and in that capacity the
returning officer at a Parliamentary election, but does
not permit her to give a simple vote in the election of a
member of Parliament.</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"If," said Lord James, "their Lordships accepted this measure
making women eligible for the great positions that had been
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>specified in great communities like Liverpool and Manchester,
<em>where was the man who would be able to argue against the Parliamentary
franchise for women?</em>"</p></div>

<p>The Bill became an Act, notwithstanding Lord James's
opposition, and within twelve months he had become
a vice-president of the League for Opposing Women's
Suffrage and for "Maintaining the Representation of
Women on Municipal and other Bodies concerned with
the Domestic and Social Affairs of the Community."</p>

<p>It has been said by Mrs. Humphry Ward, Miss Violet
Markham, and other anti-suffragists that it is not very
creditable to women's public spirit that four years
after the passing of the Local Government Qualification
of Women Act of 1907, so few women<a name="Anchor-25" id="Anchor-25"></a><a href="#Footnote-25" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 25.">[25]</a> are serving on
Town and County Councils. The chief reason for their
insignificant numbers is that at present only those
women may be elected who are themselves qualified
to elect. Outside London this disqualifies married
women, and in London it only qualifies those married
women who are on the register as municipal voters.
It also disqualifies daughters living, under normal
conditions, in the houses of their parents. The range
of choice of women candidates is, therefore, very
severely restricted. Similar disqualifications in former
years applied to the post of Poor Law Guardian. When
a simple residential qualification was substituted for
the electoral qualification the number of women acting
as Poor Law Guardians increased in a few years from
about 160 to over 1300, of whom eight out of nine
have the residential qualification only, nearly half of
them being married women. It helps people to realise
how the present law limits the range of choice of women
to serve on locally elected bodies to ask them to consider
what would be the effect on the number of men who
could offer themselves for election if marriage were a
disqualification for them also. A Bill for allowing women
to be elected to Town and County Councils on a residential
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span>qualification has been before Parliament for
the four sessions 1908-11. It is "non-contentious,"
but it has never even got a second reading. Bills
concerning women lack the motive power behind them
which is almost invariably necessary for the successful
passage of a Bill through all its stages. Mrs. Humphry
Ward and Miss Markham have some justification for
their contention that the suffrage movement has largely
absorbed the energies of the more active-minded women,
and prevented them from offering themselves as candidates
in municipal elections. This is inevitable. Not
every one possesses the boundless energy of such women
as Miss Margaret Ashton, Miss Eleanor Rathbone, or
Mrs. Lees, who combine active suffrage propaganda
with work of first-class importance as members of
councils in large and important towns. But when once
the battle for suffrage is won, and the qualification is
made reasonable for women, it is almost certain that
the number of women elected on municipal bodies will
largely increase. In Norway, where women's suffrage
has been in operation since 1908, although the population
is only a little over 2,000,000, the number of women
elected on Town and County Councils in 1911 was 210,
and as many as 379 have been elected in addition as
"alternates." It appears, therefore, that the secondary
object of the Anti-Suffrage League, "the representation
of women on municipal bodies," would be
best served by extending the Parliamentary franchise
to women.</p>

<p>The Anti-Suffrage League in England has made a
great point of the number of petitions and protests
which they have obtained from women municipal voters
declaring their antagonism to women's suffrage in
Parliamentary elections. The suffragists, however,
attach little or no importance to the figures which have
been published. When suffragists conduct a canvass
of the same people on the same subject the result
is entirely different.<a name="Anchor-26" id="Anchor-26"></a><a href="#Footnote-26" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 26.">[26]</a> Much criticism has been made
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>upon the manner in which the anti-suffragists have
obtained the signatures to their petitions and protests
against women's suffrage, and we know that in some
cases signatures have been asked for "as a protest
against being governed by these lawless women." Now
there are almost as many fallacies in this sentence as
there are words. Many ardent suffragists, probably
the majority of them, are opposed to the use of physical
violence as a means of obtaining political justice.
Moreover, women are not lawless. Women in this
country, as all criminal statistics prove, are about nine
times more law-abiding than men.<a name="Anchor-27" id="Anchor-27"></a><a href="#Footnote-27" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 27.">[27]</a> If people object
to being governed by the more lawless sex, it is not
women who should be disfranchised. And besides
these considerations there is another&mdash;the voter, whether
male or female, does not govern. He, when he gives
his vote, has to decide between two or more men
representing different sets of principles, to which he
wishes to confide the various tasks of government.</p>

<p>The <cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite> of January 1911 contained
an article called "Arguments for use in Poor Districts,"
which throws a flood of light on the methods by which
these signatures of women against women's suffrage
have been obtained. The article represents an anti-suffrage
lady going round with a petition against
women's suffrage. She approaches the house of a
working woman and appeals to her whether, after she
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>has looked after her children and her home, she has not
done all that a woman has time for, and "had better
leave such things as the Government of India and the
Army and Navy, and all those outside things to the
men who understand them." A more extraordinarily
dishonest argument, if argument it can be called, can
hardly be imagined. If it were sound, it would exclude
from all share in political power not only working
women, but also working men&mdash;all who live by the sweat
of their brow, and all hard working professional and
business men. If the argument were a sound one, the
best Government would be a bureaucracy like that of
Russia, where the great tasks of government and the
management of the Army and Navy "are left to the
men who understand them," and where the peasant,
the artisan, the professional man, and the merchant
have nothing to do with laws but to obey them, and
nothing to do with taxes but to pay them. But this
system has never commended itself to the political
instincts of the British nation. Some of the anti-suffragists
at any rate could see this plainly enough
when this "argument" was applied to the continued
exclusion of working men from the franchise. Mr.
Frederic Harrison has written words on this very
subject which are as applicable to women to-day as
they were to men at the time when they were first
published:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"Electors have not got to govern a country; they have only to
find a set of men who will see that the Government is fresh and
active.... Government is one thing, but electors of any class
cannot and ought not to govern. Electing, or giving an indirect
approval of Government, is another thing, and demands wholly
different qualities. These are moral, not intellectual, practical,
not special gifts&mdash;gifts of a very plain and almost universal
order. Such are, firstly, social sympathies and sense of justice,
then openness and plainness of character; lastly, habits of action
and a practical knowledge of social misery."<a name="Anchor-28" id="Anchor-28"></a><a href="#Footnote-28" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 28.">[28]</a></p></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span></p>

<p>These are the lessons of their own leaders; but the
anti-suffragists pay no heed to them; it is little wonder
then that they pay no heed to the great suffrage leader
who has taught us that women, like men, do not need
the franchise in order that they may govern, but in
order that they may not be misgoverned.</p>

<p>One other consideration may be deduced from this
extraordinary article&mdash;"Arguments for use in Poor
Districts." If the anti-suffragists will put into cold
print such "arguments" that women ought not to
vote because they are occupied with the daily tasks of
ordinary life and are not prepared to govern India or
manage the Army and Navy, what may not the anti-suffragists
say in private in the cottages which they
visit in order to overcome the reluctance of working
women to put their names to the anti-suffrage petitions?</p>

<p>The women who petition against women's enfranchisement
are a type that we have always with us. Burke
held them up to disdain and contempt in inimitable
words in 1772, when Dissenters petitioned against
Dissenters. The Five Mile Act and the Test and Corporation
Act were then in force. The Test Act made
the taking of the Sacrament according to the rites of
the Church of England a necessary qualification for
holding public office of any kind. The Five Mile Act
forbade the proscribed Nonconformists from preaching
or holding meetings within five miles of any corporate
town. In 1772 these Acts were not often put into
operation, but as long as they were in the Statute Book
the Nonconformist leaders felt that they were doomed
to live on sufferance; their friends in Parliament
prepared a Bill for their relief from these outrageous
disabilities. Opposition was, of course, at once
awakened; it proceeded mainly from the King and the
"King's friends." Their hands were strengthened by
receiving a petition signed by dissenting ministers, who
entreated Parliament not to surrender a test "imposed
expressly for the maintenance of those essential doctrines
upon which the Reformation was founded." They were
for the time successful, but Burke's oratory has pointed
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>the finger of scorn at them for all time. "Two
bodies of men," he said, "approach our House and
prostrate themselves at our Bar. 'We ask not honours,'
say the one. 'We have no aspiring wishes, no views
upon the purple....' 'We, on the contrary,' say
the Dissenters who petition against Dissenters, 'enjoy
every species of indulgence we can wish for; and as
we are content, we pray that others who are not content
may meet with no relief.'"<a name="Anchor-29" id="Anchor-29"></a><a href="#Footnote-29" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 29.">[29]</a></p>

<p>We do not envy the Dissenters who petitioned against
Dissenters in the eighteenth century, and future generations
will probably mete out no very kindly judgment
to the women who petitioned against women in 1889
and 1911: "As we are content, we pray that others
who are not content may meet with no relief."</p>

<p>One most effective reply has been made by the
suffragists to the allegation of their opponents that
women do not desire their own enfranchisement.
Between the autumns of 1910 and 1911 more than
130 local councils petitioned Parliament in favour of
passing without delay the Women's Suffrage Bill,
known as the Conciliation Bill. These councils comprise
those of the most important towns in the kingdom,
including Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Inverness,
Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Liverpool, Manchester,
Birmingham, Sheffield, Bradford, Oldham, Leeds,
Wolverhampton, Newcastle, and Brighton. No such
series of petitions from locally elected bodies has probably
ever been presented to Parliament in favour of
a Franchise Bill. The anti-suffragists have endeavoured
to belittle the significance of these petitions. In an
important official letter to Mr. Asquith, signed by Lord
Cromer, Lady Jersey, Mrs. Humphry Ward, Lord
Curzon, and others, it is stated:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"The councils which have allowed these resolutions to go
through are, in no small degree, dependent for votes upon the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>very women whom the Bill proposes to enfranchise, <em>and it is
most natural that the councillors should shrink from the risk of
offending them</em>."<a name="Anchor-30" id="Anchor-30"></a><a href="#Footnote-30" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 30.">[30]</a></p></div>

<p>This is a good specimen of anti-suffrage logic. Women
householders are strongly opposed to their own enfranchisement;
but Town Councillors who depend upon
the votes of these women are forced to petition in favour
of their enfranchisement because these councillors "shrink
from the risk of offending them."</p>

<p>It is true that Lord Cromer, Lord Curzon, and the
other signatories of the letter go on to say that they
are much better acquainted with the feeling of the
women municipal voters in the various towns than
the men are who have lived in them all their lives,
and have repeatedly stood in them as candidates in
municipal elections. This illustrates the degree of
knowledge possessed by the most distinguished of the
anti-suffragists of the work-a-day world in which
humbler mortals have to live.</p>

<p>Mr. Gladstone said of the House of Lords when they
opposed the Reform Bill of 1884 that they "lived in a
balloon," unconscious of what was happening among
the dim common populations living on the earth. The
same criticism is applicable to the anti-suffragists.
They opened the year 1911 in their <cite>Review</cite> by saying
that they looked "forward with complete confidence
to the work of saving women from the immeasurable
injury of having their sex brought into the conflict of
political life." This was immediately after the election
of December 1910, during which Mrs. Humphry Ward
had taken an active personal share in her son's electoral
contest in West Hertfordshire; and during which a
large number of Unionist candidates and others had
had the offer from her publishers of her <cite>Letters to my
Friends and Neighbours</cite>, written anew for the second
election of 1910, price 3d. each or 1000 copies for £5.
No suffragist blames Mrs. Humphry Ward for her
active interest in politics. Whether people like it or
not, women are taking part in active political work;
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>but to talk of "the immeasurable injury of bringing their
sex into the conflict of political life," and at the same
time to profit by the political knowledge and enthusiasm
of women is a practical absurdity. All
parties are alike in getting as much work as possible
during an election out of the women who sympathise
with them.</p>

<p>To encourage the political activity of women and
at the same time talk about "protecting women from
the immeasurable injury of having their sex brought
into the conflict of political life," helps one to understand
why Frenchmen say that the English are a nation of
hypocrites.</p>

<p>Some eminent anti-suffragists attacked the Insurance
Bill (1911) on the ground that it is "cruelly unfair"
to women; others, including some of their most
distinguished women, but no men, sent to the Prime
Minister in July a carefully worded and powerfully
reasoned letter explaining in detail the points in which
they felt that the Bill did less than justice to women.
Space does not permit a detailed examination of the
points raised in this excellent letter, but one sentence
in it must be given, for it contains within itself the gist
of the case for women's suffrage:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"We would strongly urge that instead of meeting these and
similar cases by amending the Bill in the way which was
promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on July 10th,
<em>it would be preferable to substitute the insurance which is needed for
that which is not needed</em>."</p></div>

<p>The unrepresented are always liable to be given what
they do not need rather than what they do need. This,
in one sentence, forms the strength of the case for
women's suffrage. However benevolent men may be
in their intentions, they cannot know what women want
and what suits the necessities of women's lives as well
as women know these things themselves.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span></p>



<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="6">VI</abbr><br />

<small>THE MILITANT SOCIETIES</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p class="hang">"It is a calumny on men to say that they are roused to heroic
action by ease, hope of pleasure&mdash;sugar plums of any kind.
In the meanest mortal there lies something nobler. Difficulty,
abnegation, martyrdom, death, are the allurements
which act upon the heart of man."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Thomas Carlyle.</span></p></div>


<p>In Chapters <abbr title="2">II.</abbr> and <abbr title="3">III.</abbr> an outline was given of the
Parliamentary history of women's suffrage between
1867 and 1897. In those thirty years the movement
had progressed until it had reached a point when it
could count upon a majority of suffragists being returned
in each successively elected House of Commons.
In 1899 came the South African War, and the main
interest of the nation was concentrated on that struggle
till it was over. A war almost invariably suspends all
progress in domestic and social legislation. Two fires
cannot burn together, and the most ardent of the
suffragists felt that, while the war lasted, it was not a
fitting time to press their own claims and objects.
The war temporarily suspended the progress of the
suffrage movement, but it is probable that it ultimately
strengthened the demand of women for citizenship, for
it has been observed again and again that a war, or
any other event which stimulates national vitality,
and the consciousness of the value of citizenship is
almost certain to be followed by increased vigour in
the suffrage movement, and not infrequently by its
success. For instance, suffrage in Finland in 1907
followed immediately upon the great struggle with
Russia to regain constitutional liberty; women as
well as men had thrown themselves into that struggle
and borne the great sacrifices it entailed, and when
Finland wrung from the Czar the granting of the
Constitution, women's suffrage formed an essential
part of it, and was demanded by the almost unanimous
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>voice of the Finnish people. Again, when suffrage was
granted to women in Norway in 1907, it was immediately
after the great outburst of national feeling which led
to the separation from Sweden, and established Norway
as an independent kingdom. Upon the rights and
wrongs of the controversy between the two countries it
is not for us to enter, but the intensity of the feeling in
Norway in favour of separation is undoubted. The women
had shared in the national fervour and in all the work
and sacrifices it entailed. The Parliamentary Suffrage
was granted to women as one of the first Acts of the
Norwegian Parliament.</p>

<p>In the Commonwealth of Australia almost the first
Act of the first Parliament was the enfranchisement of
women. The national feeling of Australia had been
stimulated and the sense of national responsibility
deepened by the events which led to the Federation of
the Independent States of the Australian Continent.
It is true that South Australia and Western Australia
had led the way about women's suffrage before this in
1893 and 1899, but up to the time of the formation of
the Commonwealth there had been no such rapid extension
of the suffrage to women as that which accompanied
or immediately followed it.<a name="Anchor-31" id="Anchor-31"></a><a href="#Footnote-31" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 31.">[31]</a></p>

<p>The fight for suffrage in the United Kingdom is not
won yet, but it has made enormous progress towards
victory, and this, in my opinion, is in part due to the
quickened sense of national responsibility, the deeper
sense of the value of citizenship which was created by
the South African War. The war in the first instance
originated from the refusal of the vote to Englishmen
and other "Uitlanders" long settled in the Transvaal.
The newspapers, therefore, both in this country and in
South Africa constantly dwelt on the value and significance
of the vote. <cite>The Spectator</cite> once put the point
with great brevity and force when it wrote, "We dwell
so strongly on the franchise because it includes all other
rights, and is the one essential thing." Now this is
either true or untrue; if true it applies to women as
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>well as to "Uitlanders." After thinking of the war and
its causes the first thing in the morning and the last
thing at night for nearly three years, there were many
thousands of Englishwomen who asked themselves
why, if the vote to Englishmen in the Transvaal was
worth £200,000,000 of money and some 30,000 lives,
it was not also of great value and significance to women
at home. Why, they said to themselves and to others,
are we to be treated as perpetual "Uitlanders" in the
country of our birth, which we love as well as any
other of its citizens?</p>

<p>Therefore in the long run the war, though it temporarily
caused a suspension of the suffrage agitation,
nourished it at its source, and very shortly after the
declaration of peace it became more active than it had
ever been before. Ever since 1897, when Mr. Faithfull
Begg's Women's Suffrage Bill had been read a second
time by 228 to 157, the enemies of suffrage in the House
of Commons had managed to evade a vote on a direct
issue. The days obtained for Suffrage Bills were absorbed
by the Government or merged into the holidays.
One or other of the hundred ways of burking discussion
open to the experienced Parliamentarian was used.
Nevertheless women's suffrage resolutions were brought
forward in 1904 and 1905; that of 1905 was "talked out."</p>

<p>At the end of 1905 the general public first became
aware of a new element in the suffrage movement.
The Women's Social and Political Union had been
formed by Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst in 1903, but the
"militant movement," with which its name will always
be associated, had not attracted any public notice till
the end of 1905. Its manifestations and multifarious
activities have been set forth in detail by Miss Sylvia
Pankhurst in a book, and are also so well known from
other sources that it is unnecessary to dwell upon
them here.<a name="Anchor-32" id="Anchor-32"></a><a href="#Footnote-32" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 32.">[32]</a> It is enough to say that by adopting
novel and startling methods not at the outset associated
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>with physical violence or attempts at violence, they
succeeded in drawing a far larger amount of public
attention to the claims of women to representation
than ever had been given to the subject before. These
methods were regarded by many suffragists with strong
aversion, while others watched them with sympathy
and admiration for the courage and self-sacrifice which
these new methods involved. It is notorious that
differences of method separate people from one another
even more acutely than differences of aim. This has
been seen in the history of religion as well as in politics:&mdash;</p>

<div class="poetry-container">
  <div class="poetry">
    <div class="stanza">
      <div class="verse">"Christians have burnt each other, quite persuaded</div>
      <div class="verse">That the apostles would have done as they did."</div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>


<p>It was a most anxious time for many months when
there seemed a danger that the suffrage cause might
degenerate into futile quarrelling among suffragists
about the respective merits of their different methods,
rather than develop into a larger, broader, and more
widespread movement. This danger has been happily
averted, partly by the good sense of the suffragists
of all parties, who held firmly to the sheet anchor of
the fact that they were all working for precisely the
same thing, the removal of the sex disability in Parliamentary
elections, and, therefore, that what united
them was more important than that which separated
them. The formation of the anti-suffrage societies
was also from this point of view most opportune, giving
us all an immediate objective. It was obvious to all
suffragists that they should turn their artillery on
their opponents rather than on each other. Therefore,
while recognising fully all the acute differences which
must exist between the advocates of revolutionary
and constitutional methods, each group went on its
own way; and the total result has undoubtedly been
an extraordinary growth in the vigour and force of the
suffrage movement all over the country. The most
satisfactory feature of the situation was that however
acute were the differences between the heads of the
different societies, the general mass of suffragists
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>throughout the country were loyal to the cause by
whomsoever it was represented, just as Italian patriots
in the great days of the <i lang="it" xml:lang="it">Risorgimento</i> supported the
unity of Italy, whether promoted by Cavour, Garibaldi,
or Mazzini.<a name="Anchor-33" id="Anchor-33"></a><a href="#Footnote-33" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 33.">[33]</a></p>

<p>The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies
endeavoured to steer an even keel. They never
weakened in their conviction that constitutional agitation
was not only right in itself, but would prove far
more effective in the long run than any display of
physical violence, as a means of converting the electorate,
the general public, and, consequently, Parliament and
the Government, to a belief in women's suffrage. But
the difficulties for a long time were very great. A few
of our own members attacked us because we were not
militant; others resigned because they disapproved of
the militantism which we had repudiated. On one
such occasion a high dignitary of the Church of England,
who is also a distinguished historian, wrote to resign
his position as vice-president of one of our societies
because he highly disapproved of the recent action of
the members of militant societies. The honorary
secretary replied, asking him if he was also relinquishing
his connection with Christianity, as she gathered from
his writings that he strongly disapproved of what some
Christians had done in the supposed interests of
Christianity. It is to the credit of both that the
threatened resignation was withdrawn. We tried to
comfort and help the weak-hearted by reminding them,
in the words of Viscount Morley, that "No reformer is
fit for his task if he suffers himself to be frightened by
the excesses of an extreme wing."<a name="Anchor-34" id="Anchor-34"></a><a href="#Footnote-34" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 34.">[34]</a></p>

<p>Personally it was to myself the most difficult time
of my forty years of suffrage work. I was helped
a good deal by recalling a saying of my husband's
about the Irish situation in the 'eighties, when he was
heard saying to himself, "Just keep on and do what
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>is right." I am far from claiming that we actually
accomplished the difficult feat of doing what was right,
but I believe we tried to. But the brutal severity with
which some of the militant suffragists were treated
gave suffragists of all parties another subject on which
they were in agreement.</p>

<p>Minor breaches of the law, such as waving flags and
making speeches in the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament,
were treated more severely than serious crime
on the part of men has often been. A sentence of three
months' imprisonment as an ordinary offender was
passed in one case against a young girl who had done
nothing except to decline to be bound over to keep the
peace which she was prepared to swear she had not
broken. The turning of the hose upon a suffrage
prisoner in her cell in a midwinter night, and all the
anguish of the hunger strike and forcible feeding are
other examples. All through 1908 and 1909 a dead set
was made upon law-breakers, real or supposed, who
were obscure and unknown; while people with well-known
names and of good social position were treated
with leniency, and in some cases were allowed to do
almost anything without arrest or punishment.<a name="Anchor-35" id="Anchor-35"></a><a href="#Footnote-35" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 35.">[35]</a></p>

<p>The militant societies split into two in 1907, when
the Freedom League was formed under the Presidency
of Mrs. Despard. Shortly after this both the militant
groups abandoned the plan upon which for the first
few years they had worked&mdash;that of suffering violence,
but using none. Stone-throwing of a not very formidable
kind was indulged in, and personal attacks upon
Ministers of the Crown were attempted.<a name="Anchor-36" id="Anchor-36"></a><a href="#Footnote-36" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 36.">[36]</a> These new
developments necessitated, in the opinion of the National
Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, the publication
of protests expressing their grave and strong objection
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>to the use of personal violence as a means of political
propaganda. These protests were published in
November 1908 and October 1909.<a name="Anchor-37" id="Anchor-37"></a><a href="#Footnote-37" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 37.">[37]</a> The second, and
shortest, was as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"That the Council of the National Union of Women's Suffrage
Societies strongly condemns the use of violence in political
propaganda, and being convinced that the true way of advocating
the cause of Women's Suffrage is by energetic, law-abiding
propaganda, reaffirms its adherence to constitutional principles,
and instructs the Executive Committee and the Societies to
communicate this resolution to the Press."</p></div>

<p>To this was added:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>"That while condemning methods of violence the Council of
the N.U.W.S.S. also protests most earnestly against the manner
in which the whole Suffrage agitation has been handled by the
responsible Government."</p></div>

<p>The National Union has not thought it necessary
publicly to protest against every individual act of
violence. Having definitely and in a full Council,
where all the societies in the Union are represented in
proportion to their membership, put upon record that
they "strongly condemn the use of violence in political
propaganda," it appears unnecessary to asseverate that
they condemn individual acts of violence. There is a
remarkable passage in one of Cromwell's letters explaining
why that which is gained by force is of little
value in comparison with that which is conceded to
the claims of justice and reason. "Things obtained
by force," he wrote, "though never so good in themselves,
would be both less to their honour and less likely
to last than concessions made to argument and reason."
"What we gain in a free way is better than twice
as much in a forced, and will be more truly ours and
our posterity's."<a name="Anchor-38" id="Anchor-38"></a><a href="#Footnote-38" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 38.">[38]</a> The practical example of male revolutionists
is often cited to the contrary; but with
all due respect to the other sex, is not their example
too often an example of how not to do it? The Russian
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>revolution, for instance, seems to have thrown the
political development of Russia into a vicious circle:
"we murder you because you and your like have
murdered us," and thus it goes on in an endless vista
like one mirror reflecting another. I admit fully that
the kind and degree of violence carried out by the
so-called "suffragettes" is of the mildest description;
a few panes of glass have been broken, and meetings
have been disturbed, but no one has suffered in life or
limb; our great movement towards freedom has not
been stained by serious crime. Compared with the
Irish Nationalist movement in the 'eighties, or the
recent unrest in India, the so-called "violence" of the
suffragettes is absolutely negligible in degree, except as
an indication of their frame of mind.</p>

<p>Far more violence has been suffered by the suffragettes
than they have caused their opponents to suffer. The
violence of the stewards at Liberal meetings in throwing
out either men or women who dared to ask questions
about women's suffrage has been most discreditable.
It may be hoped it has been checked by an action
claiming damages brought on at the Leeds Assizes in
March 1911 on behalf of a man who had had his leg
broken by the violence with which he had been thrown
out of a meeting at Bradford by Liberal stewards,
in the previous November. The judge ruled that his
ejection from the meeting was in itself unlawful, and
the only question he left to the jury was to assess
damages. The jury awarded the plaintiff £100; this
decision was appealed against, but the appeal was
withdrawn in October 1911.<a name="Anchor-39" id="Anchor-39"></a><a href="#Footnote-39" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 39.">[39]</a></p>

<p>Mark Twain once wrote of the women suffragists in
his own country, "For forty years they have swept
an imposingly large number of unfair laws from the
statute books of America. In this brief time these
serfs have set themselves free&mdash;essentially. <em>Men could
not have done as much for themselves in that time without</em>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span><em>bloodshed</em>, at least they never have, and that is an
argument that they didn't know how."<a name="Anchor-40" id="Anchor-40"></a><a href="#Footnote-40" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 40.">[40]</a></p>

<p>Perhaps the mild degree of violence perpetrated by
the suffragettes was intended to lower our sex pride;
we were going to show the world how to gain reforms
without violence, without killing people and blowing
up buildings, and doing the other silly things that men
have done when they wanted the laws altered. Lord
Acton once wrote: "It seems to be a law of political
evolution that no great advance in human freedom can
be gained except after the display of some kind of
violence." We wanted to show that we could make
the grand advance in human freedom, at which we
aimed without the display of any kind of violence. We
have been disappointed in that ambition, but we may
still lay the flattering unction to our souls that the
violence offered has not been formidable, and that the
fiercest of the suffragettes have been far more ready to
suffer pain than to inflict it. What those endured who
underwent the hunger strike and the anguish of forcible
feeding can hardly be overestimated. Their courage
made a very deep impression on the public and touched
the imagination of the whole country.</p>

<p>Of course a very different measure is applied to men
and women in these matters. Women are expected to
be able to bear every kind of injustice without even
"a choleric word"; if men riot when they do not
get what they want they are leniently judged, and
excesses of which they may be guilty are excused in
the House of Commons, in the press, and on the bench
on the plea of political excitement. Compare the line
of the press on the strike riots in Wales and elsewhere
with the tone of the same papers on the comparatively
infinitesimal degree of violence shown by the militant
suffragists. No one has been more severe in his condemnation
of militantism than Mr. Churchill, but
speaking in the House of Commons in August 8, 1911,
about the violent riots in connection with Parliamentary
Reform in 1832, he is reported to have said: "It is true
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>there was rioting in 1832, <em>but the people had no votes
then, and had very little choice as to the alternatives they
should adopt</em>." If this is a good argument, why not
extend its application to the militant suffragists?</p>

<p>The use of physical violence by the militant societies
was not the only difference between them and the
National Union. The two groups between 1905 and
1911 adopted different election policies. The militants
believed, and they had much ground for their belief,
that the only chance of a Women's Suffrage Bill being
carried into law lay in its adoption by one or other of
the great political parties as a party question. The
private member, they urged, had no longer a chance
of passing an important measure; it must be backed
by a Government. Hence they concluded that the
individual member of Parliament was of no particular
consequence, and they concentrated their efforts at
each electoral contest in endeavouring to coerce the
Government of the day to take up the suffrage cause.
Their cry in every election was "Keep the Liberal out,"
not, as they asserted, from party motives, but because
the Government of the day, and the Government alone,
had the power to pass a Suffrage Bill; and as long as
any Government declined to take up suffrage they would
have to encounter all the opposition which the militants
could command. In carrying out this policy they
opposed the strongest supporters of women's suffrage
if they were also supporters of the Government.</p>

<p>The National Union adopted a different election
policy&mdash;that of obtaining declarations of opinion from
all candidates at each election and supporting the man,
independent of party, who gave the most satisfactory
assurances of support. In the view of the National
Union this policy was infinitely more adapted to the
facts of the situation than that adopted by the militants.
What was desired was that the electorate should be
educated in the principles of women's suffrage, and
made to understand what women wanted, and why
they wanted it; and electors were much more likely to
approach the subject in a reasonable frame of mind
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>if they had not been thrown into a violent rage by what
they considered an unfair attack upon their own party.
To this it was replied that only the Liberals were enraged
and that the Conservatives would be correspondingly
conciliated. It did not appear, however, that this was
actually the case. The Conservatives were not slow to
see that their immunity from attack was only temporary;
when their turn came to have a Government in power
the cry would be changed to "Keep the Conservative
out." And then having profoundly irritated one half
of the electorate, the militants would go on to irritate
the other half. What the National Union aimed at was
the creation in each constituency of a Women's Suffrage
society on non-party lines, which should by meetings,
articles, and educational propaganda of all kinds create
so strong a feeling in favour of women's suffrage as to
make party managers on both sides realise, in choosing
candidates, that they would have a better chance of
success with a man who was a suffragist than with a
man who was an anti-suffragist.</p>

<p>The whole Parliamentary situation was altered when
in November 1910, and again more explicitly in June and
August 1911, Mr. Asquith promised on behalf of the
Government that on certain conditions they would
grant time for all the stages of a Women's Suffrage Bill
during this Parliament. This removed the basis on
which the militant societies had founded their election
policy; it no longer was an impossibility for a private
member to carry a Reform Bill, and it became obvious
that the road to success lay in endeavouring, as far as
possible, to promote the return of men of all parties to
the House of Commons who were genuine suffragists.
The Women's Social and Political Union and the Freedom
League appreciated the importance of this change,
and early in 1911 they definitely suspended militant
action, and abandoned their original election policy.
There was thus harmony in methods as well as unity
of aims between the Suffrage Societies until this harmony
was disturbed by the events to be described in
the next chapter.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span></p>



<h2>CHAPTER <abbr title="7">VII</abbr><br />

<small>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS</small></h2>

<div class="blockquot">

<p class="hang">"If a great change is to be made in human affairs, the minds of
men will be fitted to it; the general opinions and feelings
will draw that way. Every fear, every hope will forward it,
and then they who persist in opposing this mighty current in
human affairs, will appear rather to resist the decrees of
Providence itself, than the mere designs of men. They will
not be resolute and firm, but perverse and obstinate."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Burke</span>
(<cite>Thoughts on French Affairs</cite>).</p></div>


<p>The Parliament elected in January 1906 contained an
overwhelming Liberal majority; it also contained
more than 400 members, belonging to all parties, who
were pledged to the principle of women's suffrage. A
considerable number of these had expressed their adherence
to the movement in their election addresses.</p>

<p>Mr. (now Viscount) Haldane had said at Reading,
just before the election, that he considered women's
suffrage not only desirable, but necessary, if Parliament
would grapple successfully with the difficult problems
of social reform. Mr. Lloyd George stigmatised the
exclusion of women from the right of voting as "an act
of intolerable injustice." Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman,
the Prime Minister, who received a deputation
containing representatives of all the suffrage societies
in May 1906, said that they "had made out a conclusive
and irrefutable case." Still no promise of
Government help for the passing of a Suffrage Bill
was forthcoming; the difference of opinion in both
parties on the subject of women's suffrage cut across
all party ties, and thus hindered Government action.
It was obvious that no private member, in the changed
conditions of modern politics, could pass so important
a Bill without Government help; and no promise of
this help could be obtained. The first debate on a
Women's Suffrage Bill in the new Parliament took
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>place in 1907, when the speaker refused to grant the
closure and the Bill was talked out. Mr. Stanger,
K.C., M.P., drew a good place in the ballot in 1908, and
his Bill for the simple removal of the sex disability
from existing franchises came on for second reading in
February. The closure having been granted, the
division resulted in the great majority for the Bill of
273 to 94. But no further progress was made.</p>

<p>In May of the same year a deputation of Liberal M.P.'s
waited on Mr. Asquith, who had then become Prime
Minister, to press him for aid for passing into law a
Women's Suffrage Bill. He admitted that about two-thirds
of his Cabinet and a majority of his party were
favourable to women's suffrage, and while maintaining
his own continued opposition to it, made a statement
that his Government intended to introduce a measure
of electoral reform, and that if an amendment for the
admission of women were proposed on democratic
lines, his Government as a Government would not
oppose it. This was a great advance on the position
occupied by Mr. Gladstone in 1884, when he vehemently
opposed a women's suffrage amendment to the Reform
Bill of that year. All the organs of public opinion
without exception recognised that this promise advanced
the movement for women's suffrage to a higher
place in practical politics than it had ever before
occupied. The next year, 1909, Mr. Geoffrey Howard,
M.P., and other Liberal members abandoned the non-party
Women's Suffrage Bill which had hitherto always
been introduced, and brought forward a Bill for what
was practically universal adult suffrage; this course
alienated all Conservative and much moderate Liberal
support, and was taken in the face of the strongly expressed
protests of all the suffrage societies. The
division on the second reading showed a majority of
only 35 or less than one-fifth of the majority for the more
moderate Bill. The supporters fell in numbers from
273 to 159, and the opposition increased from 94 to 124,
and this in a House of Commons with the immense
combined Liberal, Labour, and Nationalist majority of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>513 to 157. In the House of Commons elected successively
in January and December 1910 the same combination
of parties had a majority of about 125, as
compared with a majority of 356 in the Parliament of
1906. These figures are most eloquent of the real
political situation, and explain why genuine suffragists
who want women's names on the register before the
next election, supported, in the absence of Government
aid, a measure on moderate lines calculated to unite the
greatest amount of support from all parts of the House,
rather than a Bill drafted on extreme party lines, which
would certainly alienate Conservative and moderate
Liberal support. If an Adult Suffrage Bill could only
obtain a majority of 35 when the Government majority
was 356, it is easy to predict where it would be when
the Government majority was reduced to 125.</p>

<p>In December 1909 the Government announced an
immediate dissolution of Parliament. For the first
time in the history of the women's suffrage movement
the political campaign preceding a general election
was opened with important declarations from the
Prime Minister and other members of his Government
on the subject of the enfranchisement of women.</p>

<p>At the great meeting of his party at the Albert Hall,
December 10, 1909, after indicating his own continued
opposition to women's suffrage, Mr. Asquith said:
"Nearly two years ago I declared on behalf of the
present Government that in the event, which we then
contemplated, of our bringing in a Reform Bill, we
should make the insertion of a suffrage amendment
an open question for the House of Commons to decide
(cheers). Our friends and fellow-workers of the Women's
Liberal Federation (cheers) have asked me to say that
my declaration survives the expiring Parliament, and
will hold good in its successor, and that their cause, so
far as the Government is concerned, shall be no worse
off in the new Parliament than it would have been in
the old. I have no hesitation in acceding to that
request (cheers). The Government ... has no disposition
or desire to burke this question; it is clearly
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>an issue on which the new House of Commons ought to
be given an opportunity to express its views."</p>

<p>On the same day Sir Edward Grey, at Alnwick,
reiterated his continued support of women's suffrage.
In reply to a question, he said: "If that means, am I
in favour of a reasonable Bill for giving votes to women,
I have always supported that Bill, and I don't think it
right to change my opinions because what I believe to
be a small minority among women has been very violent
and unreasonable." Mr. Winston Churchill, a few days
earlier, expressed a similar opinion to that of Sir Edward
Grey.</p>

<p>The anti-suffragists are never weary of asserting that
women's suffrage has never been before the country
as a practical political issue. It is difficult to imagine
what being "before the country" consists in, if the
foregoing declarations on the part of the leaders of the
party in power do not indicate that a question has
reached this stage. At the general election of January
1910, 245 candidates mentioned in their election addresses
that they supported the extension of the
Parliamentary franchise to women.<a name="Anchor-41" id="Anchor-41"></a><a href="#Footnote-41" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 41.">[41]</a> In this election
the National Union organised a voters' petition in
support of women's suffrage. The signatures, amounting
to over 280,000, were nearly all collected on polling
day from electors who had just recorded their own
vote. In some constituencies, especially in the North
of England, hardly a man refused his signature; the
polling number was in each case attached to the signature
as a means of identification, and as a guarantee of good
faith. No objection has ever been made to our petitions,
or signatures disallowed, as in the case of some of the
anti-suffrage petitions, on the ground that there were
pages of signatures all in the same handwriting.</p>

<p>An extremely important event in the development of
the suffrage movement in the field of practical politics
took place almost simultaneously with the January 1910
election. This was the formation of the Conciliation
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>Committee. It was recognised on all hands that
women's suffrage was in an unprecedented Parliamentary
position; a large majority of members of Parliament
were pledged to it, but it was not backed by either of
the great parties, and consequently lacked the driving
power to get through the stages necessary to convert a
Bill into an Act of Parliament. This was in part due
to differences as to the sort of women's suffrage which
members of Parliament were prepared to accept. The
Liberals objected to a Bill in the old lines based on
the removal of the sex disability, dreading that such a
measure would be used as a means of multiplying plural
voting, and would thus probably tell heavily against
the Liberal party. Conservatives and moderate
Liberals objected to the immense addition to the
electorate which would be caused by adult suffrage.
The Conciliation Committee was formed with the view
of reconciling these differences, by finding a Bill which
all suffragists could support. With the exception of
the chairman, the Earl of Lytton, and the <abbr title="Honorary">Hon.</abbr> Secretary,
Mr. H. N. Brailsford, it consisted entirely of members
of the House of Commons favourable to women's
suffrage, and representing the parties&mdash;Liberal, Conservative,
Labour, and Nationalist&mdash;into which the
House is divided. As the result of the work of this
committee a Bill was arrived at, to which all the parties
represented on the committee could agree.</p>

<p>The Bill was drafted on the lines of simple Household
Suffrage with a clause expressly laying down that
marriage was not to be a disqualification. It has never
been contended that this is a perfect Bill; it was the
result of a compromise between the different parties
in the House of Commons. The Conservatives and
moderate Liberals objected to adult suffrage; the
Liberals and their allies objected to the old suffrages
being simply opened to women for the reasons just
indicated; therefore, in deference to Liberal objections,
the freeholders, occupiers, service, university, lodger,
and other franchises were abandoned in the case of
women, and in deference to Conservative objections
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>adult suffrage was not proposed. The Bill which was
agreed upon was based upon the democratic principle
of Household Suffrage, of which the country had had
more than forty years' experience as far as women were
concerned in municipal elections. The principle of
the Conciliation Bill is to make Household Suffrage a
reality. Mrs. Humphry Ward condemns this measure
as "absurd."<a name="Anchor-42" id="Anchor-42"></a><a href="#Footnote-42" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 42.">[42]</a> Wherein its absurdity consists she
does not explain. Household Suffrage was the main
sheet anchor of all the great Reform Bills of the last
century; it is the basis of most of the local franchises.
It is by far the most important, numerically, of all the
various existing franchises. An interesting return is
published every year of the total number of Parliamentary
voters, indicating the qualifications under
which they vote. That dated February 28, 1911,
shows that in the whole United Kingdom there were
7,705,602 registered electors; of these 6,716,742 voted
as occupiers and householders, while less than 1,000,000
represented the total of all the other franchises
put together. The Bill, therefore, which gives women
Household Suffrage admits them to by far the most
important suffrage which men enjoy. Personally many
suffragists would prefer a less restricted measure, but
the immense importance and gain to our movement in
getting the most effective of all the existing franchises
thrown open to women cannot be exaggerated. This
was immediately appreciated by all the suffrage
societies and also by the Women's Liberal Federation,
all of which gave hearty and enthusiastic support to
the Bill, known as the Conciliation Bill, to extend
Household Suffrage to women.<a name="Anchor-43" id="Anchor-43"></a><a href="#Footnote-43" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 43.">[43]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span></p>

<p>The Conciliation Committee and the suffrage societies
successfully refuted the charge made against the Conciliation
Bill that it was undemocratic. It would, if
passed, enfranchise approximately 1,000,000 women, and
it was proved conclusively, by careful analysis of the
social status of women householders in a large and
representative group of constituencies, that the overwhelming
majority of these would be working-class
women. In London (1908) the proportion of working-class
women was shown to be 87 per cent., in Dundee
(1910), 89 per cent., Bangor and Carnarvon (1910),
75 per cent. The average in about fifty representative
constituencies, where the investigation was conducted
under the auspices of the Independent Labour Party,
was shown to be 82 per cent. The Bill gave no representation
to property whatever. The only qualification
which it recognised was that of the resident
householder.</p>

<p>This Bill, drawn in such a way as not to admit of
amendment, was introduced by Mr. Shackleton, Labour
member for Clitheroe in the new Parliament, elected in
January 1910. Two days of Government time were
given for its second reading in July of that year. It
was the first time a Women's Suffrage Bill had been
the subject of a full-dress debate. Parliamentary
leaders on both sides took part in it, and the voting
was left to the free judgment of the House of Commons.
Among the supporters of the Bill were Mr. (now Viscount)
Haldane, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Philip Snowden, and
Mr. W. Redmond, while among its opponents were
Mr. Asquith, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. F. E. Smith,
and Mr. Haviland Burke. Mr. Lloyd George and Mr.
Winston Churchill also vehemently opposed the Bill,
not on the ground of opposition to women's enfranchisement,
but because of the alleged undemocratic
character of this particular measure, and because it
was introduced in a form that did not admit of amendment.
The division resulted in the large majority of
110 for the second reading, a figure in excess of anything
which the Government could command for their chief
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>party measures. An analysis of the division list gave
the following results, omitting pairs of whom there
were 24:&mdash;</p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">For the Bill</td>
    <td class="tdr">Against the Bill</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Liberals</td>
    <td class="tdr">161</td>
    <td class="tdr">60</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Unionists</td>
    <td class="tdr">87</td>
    <td class="tdr">113</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Labour</td>
    <td class="tdr">31</td>
    <td class="tdr">2</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Nationalists</td>
    <td class="tdr">20</td>
    <td class="tdr">14</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">&mdash;&mdash;</td>
    <td class="tdr">&mdash;&mdash;</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">299</td>
    <td class="tdr">189</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p>Notwithstanding this large majority the Bill was
destined to make no further progress that session; but
the interval between the second reading and the assembling
of Parliament for the autumn session was
utilised for the organisation of the most remarkable
series of public demonstrations of an entirely peaceful
character which have probably ever been held in this
country in support of any extension of the suffrage. It
was estimated that no fewer than 4000 public meetings
were held in the four months between July and
November; the largest halls all over the country were
filled again and again; the Albert Hall was filled twice
in one week; the largest meeting ever held in Hyde
Park, when more than half a million of people were
assembled, was organised by the Women's Social and
Political Union. It was at this moment that the
remarkable movement, already referred to in Chapter <abbr title="5">V.</abbr>,
was begun&mdash;the series of petitions from Town and other
locally elected Councils for the speedy passing into law
of the measure known as the Conciliation Bill. The
city of Glasgow led the way with a unanimous vote of
its Council.</p>

<p>During this autumn Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Birrell,
and Mr. Runciman made public declarations in support
of women's suffrage, and said that in their opinion
facilities for the further progress of the Bill and its
passage into law ought to be provided in 1911. A few
months later Lord Haldane said he hoped "the Bill
would pass quickly." The most important practical
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>gain for the suffrage movement was, however, achieved
in November 1910. Early in the month Mr. Asquith
had announced the intention of his Government again
immediately to dissolve Parliament; and on the 22nd,
in reply to a question in the House, he said that the
Government would, "if they were still in power, give
facilities in the next Parliament for effectively proceeding
with a [Women's Suffrage] Bill, if so framed as
to admit of free amendment." These words gave to
suffragists the key which enabled them to unlock the
doors which barred their progress. The more astute
political minds among the anti-suffragists immediately
saw the importance of this promise. <cite>The Times</cite>,
November 24, announced that it made women's
suffrage an issue before the country at the coming
election, and added, "If the election confirms the
Government in power the new Parliament <em>will be considered
to have received a mandate on the subject of
women's suffrage</em>."<a name="Anchor-44" id="Anchor-44"></a><a href="#Footnote-44" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 44.">[44]</a></p>

<p>The feather-heads could see nothing of any importance
in this promise, and the <cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite>
allowed itself the treat of entitling an article "Nod and
wink promises." All suffragists of any experience,
however, felt that their cause had received an immensely
important impetus, and that they were gaining
ground not by painful inches but by furlongs. When the
session of 1911 opened, the Conciliation Committee was
again formed, and good luck smiled upon its members,
for three of them drew the first, second, and third places
in the ballot, and thus secured an excellent place for
the second reading of the Bill. The member in charge
was Sir George Kemp, who sits for N.W. Manchester.
The Bill was, of course, drawn so as to admit of free
amendment. The second reading was on May 5, 1911,
and there voted for it 255, and against it 88. The
majority of 110 in 1910 had thus grown in 1911 to 167.
There were 55 pairs; but the number of members
wishing to pair in favour of the Bill was so great that
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>the demand could not be satisfied. Six of these wrote
to the papers explaining their position. Adding the
pairs, and those who desired to pair, but were unable
to do so, the analysis works out as follows:&mdash;</p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">For the Bill</td>
    <td class="tdr">Against the Bill</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Liberals</td>
    <td class="tdr">174</td>
    <td class="tdr">48</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Conservatives</td>
    <td class="tdr">79</td>
    <td class="tdr">86</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Labour</td>
    <td class="tdr">32</td>
    <td class="tdr">0</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Nationalists</td>
    <td class="tdr">31</td>
    <td class="tdr">9</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">&mdash;&mdash;</td>
    <td class="tdr">&mdash;&mdash;</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl"></td>
    <td class="tdr">316</td>
    <td class="tdr">143</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p>Almost immediately after this an announcement was
made from the front bench that Mr. Asquith's promise
of the previous November that an opportunity should
be given for proceeding with the Bill in all its stages
would be fulfilled during the session of 1912. There
was for a time some fencing and difficulty over the
point whether this promise applied exclusively to the
Conciliation Bill or to any Women's Suffrage Bill which
might obtain a place in the ballot for second reading.
All doubt on this subject was finally set at rest on
August 23, by a letter from Mr. Asquith to Lord
Lytton, in which the Prime Minister stated that the
promises were given in regard to the Conciliation Bill,
and that they would be strictly adhered to both in
letter and in spirit.</p>

<p>This, then, was the position of the suffrage question
between the close of the summer session and the beginning
of November 1911. All the suffrage societies
were working in complete harmony on the same lines
and for the same Bill. The militant societies had
suspended militant tactics, and also their anti-government
election policy. The Women's Liberal Federation,
whose co-operation was of great and obvious importance,
were uniting their efforts with those of the suffrage
societies, when on November 7, a bombshell was
dropped among them in the speech of the Prime Minister,
replying to a deputation from the People's Suffrage
Federation, who presented a memorial asking for adult
suffrage. Mr. Asquith then announced that it was the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>intention of his Government to introduce during the
coming session (1912) the Electoral Reform Bill, which
he had foreshadowed in 1908, that all existing franchises
would be swept away, plural voting abolished, and the
period of residence reduced. The new franchise was
to be based on citizenship, and votes were to be given
"to citizens of full age and competent understanding."
But no place was found within the four comers of the
Bill for the enfranchisement of women. Mr. Asquith
reiterated his promise of facilities for the Conciliation
Bill, and then merely dismissed the subject of women's
suffrage with the remark that his opinions upon it were
well known. If it had been his object to enrage every
women's suffragist to the point of frenzy, he could not
have acted with greater perspicacity. Years of unexampled
effort and self-sacrifice had been expended by
women to force upon the Government the enfranchisement
of women, and when the Prime Minister spoke the
only promise he made was to give more votes to men.
Mrs. Bernard Shaw exactly expressed the sentiments of
women's suffragists, whether militant or non-militant,
when she wrote that Mr. Asquith's speech filled her with
"an impulse of blind rage"; she felt she had been
personally insulted, and that he had said to her in
effect "that the vilest male wretch who can contrive
to keep a house of ill-fame shall have a vote, and that
the noblest woman in England shall not have one because
she is a female" (<cite>The Times</cite>, November 21, 1911).</p>

<p>It is never safe to act under an impulse of blind rage,
and very soon a closer knowledge of the actual facts
surrounding and explaining the situation brought the
conviction home to many of us, indeed it may be stated
to the whole body of suffragists with one important
exception,<a name="Anchor-45" id="Anchor-45"></a><a href="#Footnote-45" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 45.">[45]</a> that the new situation created by Mr.
Asquith's speech, so far from decreasing the chances
of success for women's suffrage in 1912 had very greatly
strengthened them. First of all we were cheered by
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>the courageous and outspoken remonstrances on behalf
of women made by <cite>The Manchester Guardian</cite> and <cite>The
Nation</cite>. <cite>The Manchester Guardian</cite>, (November 9, 1911),
said that the exclusion of women would be "an outrage
and, we hope, an impossibility.... No Government
calling itself Liberal could so far betray Liberal principles
without incurring deep and lasting discredit and ultimate
disaster." The Labour party, through its chairman,
Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., also spoke out very
plainly. "We shall take care," he said, "that the
Manhood Suffrage Bill is not used to destroy the success
of the women's agitation, <em>because we have to admit
that it has been the women's agitation that has brought the
question of the franchise both for men and women to the
front at the present time</em>." Like other experienced
Parliamentarians, he advised us to hold the Government
to their pledges about the Conciliation Bill until
we had actually secured something better (<cite>The Manchester
Guardian</cite>, November 9, 1911).</p>

<p>Then we began to hear from those we knew we could
trust of meetings that were being held of suffrage
members of the Government to decide upon a plan of
action, so as to secure for women a better chance of
enfranchisement through the operation of an amendment
to the Government Bill than we could have if we
relied upon the Conciliation Bill alone. An invitation
was received from the Prime Minister to all the suffrage
societies to attend a deputation on the subject. The
full report of that deputation was in all the papers of
November 18, 1911. It is sufficient here to say that
when Mr. Asquith spoke he acknowledged the strength
and intensity of the demand for women's suffrage, and
admitted that in opposing it he was in a minority both
in his Cabinet and in his party; finally, and most
important of all, he added that although he could not
initiate and propose the change which women were
seeking, he was prepared to bow to, and acquiesce in,
the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons, and
that it was quite in accordance with the best traditions
of English public life that he should act thus. A great
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>majority of those who were present thought that the
Prime Minister had recognised that women's suffrage
was inevitable, and that it would not be for the benefit
of his party that he should withstand to the last this
great advance in human freedom.</p>

<p>Mr. Asquith gave positive and definite answers in
the affirmative to the four questions which were
asked by the National Union of Women's Suffrage
Societies:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>1. Is it the intention of the Government that the Reform Bill
shall go through all its stages in 1912?</p>

<p>2. Will the Bill be drafted in such a way as to admit of any
amendments introducing women on other terms than men?</p>

<p>3. Will the Government undertake not to oppose such amendments?</p>

<p>4. Will the Government regard any amendment enfranchising
woman which is carried as an integral part of the Bill in
all its stages?</p></div>

<p>Almost immediately after this Mr. Lloyd George
authorised the public announcement that he was
himself prepared to move the women's suffrage amendment
to the Reform Bill, or, if it was thought best in
the interests of women's suffrage, he would be pleased
to stand aside in favour of Sir Edward Grey or of some
leading Conservative. It has been indicated very
plainly that the amendment Mr. Lloyd George himself
favours will be one for the enfranchisement of householders
and wives of householders. A Bill to this effect
has been some time before Parliament, and is familiarly
known as Dickinson, No. 2; it enacts that when a
husband and wife reside together in premises for which,
under the existing law, the husband is entitled to vote,
the wife shall also be entitled to vote as a joint-occupier.
There is a parallel for a provision of this kind in the
existing franchise law of Norway. Sir Edward Grey,
Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and other
suffragists in and out of the House of Commons concur
in the opinion that the present situation gives our
movement almost a certainty of success in the session
of 1912.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span></p>
<p>Mr. Lloyd George opened his campaign for women's
suffrage in an important speech at Bath on November
24, 1911. It was a men's meeting, the occasion being
the Annual Congress of the Liberal Federation. He
was received with enthusiasm and made a powerful
and well-reasoned speech in favour of the enfranchisement
of women. This was followed in December 16 by
a meeting in London of the Women's Liberal Federation
addressed by Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George.<a name="Anchor-46" id="Anchor-46"></a><a href="#Footnote-46" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 46.">[46]</a>
The former dwelt upon the reasons which weighed with
him in favour of the representation of women, and indicated
that the amendment to the Reform Bill which
he favoured would be on the lines of Women's Suffrage
in Norway, <i>i.e.</i> not Adult Suffrage, but suffrage for
women householders, including wives (as indicated on
p. <a href="#Page_81">81</a>). Mr. Lloyd George dwelt on the essential partnership
of men and women in all the greatest things in
human life, and urged that this partnership should be
extended to politics. Thus the year 1911 ended with
every prospect of a hard won Parliamentary victory
for women's suffrage in 1912. Women's suffrage always
has been, and will remain, a non-party question.
The Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise
Association is working as keenly as any of the other
suffrage societies. We shall not succeed in 1912 unless
we are successful in attracting the support of Conservatives
as well as Liberals and Radicals. To aid us in
the final struggle it is of no little value that we have
the promise of a week's Government time for the Conciliation
Bill, if our hopes of carrying a satisfactory
amendment to the Reform Bill should be frustrated.</p>

<p>We are on the eve of the fulfilment of our hopes.
The goal towards which many of us have been striving
for nearly half a century is in sight. I appeal to each
and all of my fellow-suffragists not to be over confident,
but so to act as if the success of the suffrage cause depended
on herself alone. And even if our anticipated
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>victory should be once more delayed, I appeal to them
again not to despond but to stand firm and fast, and be
prepared to work on as zealously and as steadfastly as
of old.</p>

<p>A splendid lesson reaches us from America. The
great victory for women's suffrage in California in
October 1911 was at first reported to be a defeat. A
group of the leaders, including Dr. Anna Shaw, had
been sitting up to the small hours of the morning in
the New York Women's Suffrage Office, receiving news
from California, 3000 miles away. The first returns
were so bad that it looked as if nothing could save the
situation; and the grief was all the greater because
victory had been confidently counted on. Dr. Anna
Shaw went away in deep despondency. Presently
she came back saying she could not sleep, and walking
backwards and forwards in the office, she explained
a new plan of campaign which her fertile brain had
already originated. This is the spirit which is unconquerable
and it is our spirit too.</p>

<p>He who runs may read the signs of the times. Everything
points to the growing volume and force of the
women's movement. Even if victory should be delayed
it cannot be delayed long. The suffragists ought to be
the happiest of mankind, if happiness has been correctly
defined as the perpetual striving for an object of supreme
excellence and constantly making a nearer approach
to it.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div class="chapter"></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span></p>



<h2>
A BRIEF REVIEW<br />
OF THE<br />
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT<br />
SINCE ITS BEGINNING IN 1832</h2>
<div class="blockquot">
<i>Reprinted with abbreviations, by kind permission of the
National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies
14 Great Smith Street, Westminster</i></div>

<h3>HISTORY OF THE WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT
IN PARLIAMENT</h3>


<p>In 1832, the word "male" introduced into the Reform
Act (before "person") restricted the Parliamentary
franchise to men, and debarred women from its use.</p>

<p>1850, Lord Brougham's Act came into operation,
which ruled that, in the law of the United Kingdom,
"words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed
to include females, unless the contrary is expressly
provided."</p>

<p>In 1867, John Stuart Mill moved an amendment to
the Representation of the People Bill (Clause 4), to
leave out the word "man" and substitute "person."
This amendment was lost by a majority of 123.</p>

<p>In 1868, the judges in the Chorlton <i>v.</i> Lings case ruled
that in the case of the Parliamentary franchise, the
word "man" does not include "woman" when referring
to privileges granted by the State.</p>

<p>Since 1869, Bills and Resolutions have been constantly
before the House of Commons. Debates took place in
1870 (twice), 1871, 1872, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878,
1879, 1883, 1884, 1886, 1892, 1897, 1904, 1905, 1908
(twice), 1910, 1911.</p>

<p>Altogether, besides resolutions, thirteen Bills have
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>been introduced into the House of Commons, and
seven passed their second reading, <i>i.e.</i> in the years
1870, 1886, 1897, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911. There has
been a majority in the House of Commons in favour of
women's suffrage since 1886.</p>


<h3><span class="smcap">Formation of the Conciliation Committee</span></h3>

<p>In 1910 the Conciliation Committee was formed in
the House of Commons. With the exception of the
chairman, the Earl of Lytton, and the <abbr title="Honorary">Hon.</abbr> Secretary,
Mr. Brailsford, it consisted of members of the House
of Commons representative of all the political parties.
This committee drafted a Bill which extended the Parliamentary
franchise to women householders (about one
million in all). This Bill, popularly known as the
"Conciliation Bill," was introduced into the House of
Commons by Mr. Shackleton. Two days of Government
time were allotted to it, and on July 13, 1910, it
passed its second reading by a majority of 110, a larger
majority than the Government got for any of its
measures, including the Budget.</p>

<p>Time was refused for the further stages necessary
for its passage into law, and Parliament dissolved in
November 1910.</p>

<p>In the new Parliament Sir George Kemp re-introduced
the Bill; it was nearly the same Bill as that
introduced by Mr. Shackleton; but it was given a more
general title, leaving it open to amendment. The
second reading of this Bill took place on May 5, 1911,
and secured a <em>majority of</em> 167.</p>


<h3><span class="smcap">History of the Agitation in the Country</span></h3>

<p>The first women's suffrage societies were founded in
Manchester, in London, and in Edinburgh in 1867, and
in Bristol and in Birmingham in 1868.</p>

<p>These united to form the National Union of Women's
Suffrage Societies.</p>

<p>This Union has grown into a large and powerful body,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>its progress during the last two years being especially
remarkable.</p>

<p>In January 1909 there were 70 affiliated societies;
in October 1911 there were 305 affiliated societies,
and new societies are formed every week.</p>

<p>Societies of the National Union are now, therefore,
in existence in all parts of Great Britain, and take
an active part in electoral work. The National Union
regards this part of its work as the most important it
has to do, both as propaganda and as a means of bringing
pressure to bear upon the Government. Its election
policy is to oppose its enemies and support its friends,
and in carrying out this policy it disregards all parties.</p>

<p>For the purposes of its peaceful propaganda, whether
by public meetings, petitions, or other constitutional
forms of agitation, the N.U.W.S.S. has, during the past
year (1910), alone, raised considerably over £20,000.
More than £100,000 has also been raised for suffrage
work by the Women's Social and Political Union.</p>


<h3><span class="smcap">Public Meetings and Demonstrations</span></h3>

<p>These have been organised in great numbers. For
example:&mdash;</p>

<div class="blockquot">

<p>In February 1907, 3000 women marched in procession
in London, from Hyde Park to Exeter Hall.</p>

<p>In October 1907, 1500 women marched in procession
through Edinburgh.</p>

<p>In October 1907, 2000 women marched in procession
through Manchester.</p>

<p>In June 1908, 15,000 women marched in procession in
London to the Albert Hall.</p>

<p>In June 1911 more than 40,000 women, representing
all the suffrage societies, walked in a procession
four miles long to the Albert Hall.</p></div>

<p>Public meetings have been held all over the country
by all the suffrage societies. It is obviously impossible
to enumerate them. We content ourselves with
a rough estimate of meetings held in support of the
"Conciliation Bill." These amount to, at least, 5000
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>meetings, including a demonstration in Hyde Park,
attended by half a million people, a demonstration
in Trafalgar Square, attended by 10,000 people. Also
six Albert Hall meetings (two in one week), and demonstrations
held in other cities than London, <i>e.g.</i>,
Manchester (2), Edinburgh, Bristol, Newcastle, Guildford,
&amp;c., &amp;c.</p>

<p>These figures include meetings held by the N.U.W.S.S.
and other societies; but leave out of account out-door
meetings held in such numbers as to make even a rough
estimate impossible. During the summer and autumn
of 1910 there were at least two or three hundred every
week.</p>


<h3><span class="smcap">Growth of the Movement outside the N.U.W.S.S.</span></h3>

<p>Many other societies have been formed, having
women's suffrage as their sole object. Such are the
National Women's Social and Political Union, the
Men's League for Women's Suffrage, the Women's
Freedom League, the National Industrial and Professional
Women's Suffrage Society, the New Union,
the New Constitutional Society, the Men's Political
Union, the Church League, the Free Church League,
the League of Catholic Women, the League of the
Society of Friends, the Tax-Resistance League. Besides
such groups as the Artists' League, the Suffrage
Atelier, the Actresses' Franchise League, the Society
of Women Graduates, the Women Writers' Suffrage
League, the Younger Suffragists, the Cambridge University
Men's League, the London Graduates' Union for
Women's Suffrage, the Gymnastic Teachers' Suffrage
Society, &amp;c., &amp;c.</p>

<p>There is also the Irish Women's Suffrage and Local
Government Association, and an Irish Women's Franchise
League.</p>

<p>Within the political parties there have been formed
the Forward Suffrage Union (within the Women's Liberal
Federation), the Conservative and Unionist Women's
Franchise Association, the People's Suffrage Federation
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>(which demands the suffrage for all adult men and
women).</p>

<p>The following organisations have officially identified
themselves with the demand for some measure of
women's suffrage:&mdash;the London Liberal Federation,
the Women's Liberal Federation, the Welsh Women's
Liberal Federation, the Independent Labour Party,
the Fabian Society.</p>

<p>Other societies have repeatedly petitioned Parliament,
or passed resolutions asking for a measure of women's
suffrage. Among them the National British Women's
Temperance Association (148,000 members), the Scottish
Union of the above (42,000 members), the National
Union of Women Workers (the largest Women's
Union, numbers not exactly known), the International
Council of Women, the Association of Headmistresses,
the Association of University Women Teachers, the
Incorporated Assistant Mistresses in Secondary Schools,
the Society of Registered Nurses, the Nurses' International
Congress, the Women's Co-operative Guild (the
only organised body representing the married working-women
of this country).</p>

<p>Resolutions in favour of the "Conciliation Bill" have
been passed by 49 Trades and Labour Councils, and 36
Trades Unions and Federations. Moreover, during the
year between October 1910 and October 1911 more
than 130 Town and other local Councils petitioned
Parliament in favour of women's suffrage; among
the Town Councils who have done this are those of
Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Leeds,
Bradford, Huddersfield, Brighton, Dover, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Dundee, Inverness, Dublin,<a name="Anchor-47" id="Anchor-47"></a><a href="#Footnote-47" class="fnanchor" title="Go to footnote 47.">[47]</a> Limerick, Cork,
Cardiff, and Bangor.</p>

<p>It is to be remembered that these bodies represent
women as well as men, as women already possess the
municipal franchise.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span></p>
<h3><span class="smcap">Women's Suffrage in other Countries</span></h3>

<p>The suffrage movement has now become world-wide.
The International Women's Suffrage Alliance, which
meets quadrennially, includes societies in Austria,
Australia, Belgium, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia,
Cape Colony, Natal, Sweden, Switzerland, the United
States.</p>

<p>Women's suffrage was granted in&mdash;</p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td class="tdl">Wyoming, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">in 1869</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Colorado, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">" 1893</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">New Zealand</td><td class="tdr">" 1893</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">South Australia</td><td class="tdr">" 1893</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Utah, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">" 1895</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Idaho, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">" 1896</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">W. Australia</td><td class="tdr">" 1899</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">The Commonwealth of Australia</td><td class="tdr">" 1902</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">New South Wales</td><td class="tdr">" 1902</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Tasmania</td><td class="tdr">" 1903</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Queensland</td><td class="tdr">" 1905</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Finland</td><td class="tdr">" 1907</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Norway</td><td class="tdr">" 1908</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Victoria</td><td class="tdr">" 1909</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">Washington, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">" 1910</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdl">California, U.S.A.</td><td class="tdr">" 1911</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p>It will be noticed that all the Australian States have
now granted women's suffrage. That they have done
so proves that they realised its beneficial effects, where
they could actually see it in working as State after
State came into line.</p>
<hr class="chap" />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span></p>



<h2>LIST OF BOOKS</h2>



<ul><li><cite>The Subjection of Women.</cite> By J. S. Mill.</li>
<li><cite>On Liberty.</cite> By J. S. Mill</li>
<li><cite>On Representative Government.</cite> By J. S. Mill.</li>
<li><cite>Essays and Dissertations</cite> (vol. ii.). By J. S. Mill. Article by Mrs. Mill on the Enfranchisement of Women.</li>
<li><cite>Letters.</cite> By J. S. Mill. Edited by Hugh Elliot.</li>
<li><cite>Record of Women's Suffrage.</cite> By Helen Blackburn.</li>
<li><cite>A Handbook for Women.</cite> By Helen Blackburn.</li>
<li>Articles on Women's Rights in <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> and in <cite>Chambers's Encyclopædia</cite>.</li>
<li><cite>The Emancipation of English Women.</cite> By W. Lyon Blease.</li>
<li><cite>Questions Relating to Women.</cite> By Emily Davies, LL.D.</li>
<li><cite>Women and Labour.</cite> By Olive Schreiner.</li>
<li><cite>The Suffragette.</cite> By E. Sylvia Pankhurst.</li>
<li><cite>The Status of Women, 1066-1909.</cite> By the Misses Wallis Chapman.</li>
<li><cite>Women's Work in Local Government.</cite> By Jane E. Brownlow.</li>
<li><cite>The Life of Josephine Butler.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Pioneer Work in Opening the Medical Profession to Women.</cite> By Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.</li>
<li><cite>Women's Suffrage in Many Lands.</cite> By Alice Zimmern.</li>
<li><cite>The Englishwoman.</cite> By David Staars.</li>
<li><cite>The Women's Franchise Movement in New Zealand.</cite> By W. Sidney Smith.</li>
<li><cite xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">Le Vote des Femmes.</cite> <span xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">Par Ferdinand Buisson, Député de la Seine et Président de la Commission du Suffrage Universel.</span></li>
<li><cite>Women and Economies.</cite> By Charlotte Perkins Gilman.</li>
<li><cite>Common-sense Applied to Women's Suffrage.</cite> By Mary Putnam Jacobi, M.D.</li>
<li><cite>Equal Suffrage.</cite> By Helen Sumner, Ph.D.</li>
<li><cite>A Short History of Women's Rights.</cite> By Eugene Hecker.</li>
<li><cite>Reports of the International Women's Suffrage Alliance.</cite></li>
</ul>
<hr class="chap" />

<div class="chapter"></div>


<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2>

<div class="footnotes">
<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-1" id="Footnote-1"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-1">1</a>]</span> <cite>Vindication of the Rights of Women</cite>, published in 1792.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-2" id="Footnote-2"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-2">2</a>]</span> See <cite>Le vote des Femmes</cite>, pp. 16-22, <span xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">par Ferdinand Buisson,
Député de la Seine et Président de la Commission du Suffrage Universelle.</span>
Condorcet had a predecessor in Mademoiselle Jars de
Gournay, the friend of Montaigne. See Miss E. Sichel's <cite>Michel de
Montaigne</cite>, p. 137.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-3" id="Footnote-3"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-3">3</a>]</span> Helen Blackburn's <cite>Record of Women's Suffrage</cite>, also <cite>Women in
English Life</cite>, by Miss Georgina Hill. Mrs. Wheeler's daughter
Rosina, married Mr. Lytton Bulwer, afterwards the first Lord
Lytton. The present Earl of Lytton is thus the great-grandson of
the lady who prompted the reply to James Mill's article referred
to in the text.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-4" id="Footnote-4"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-4">4</a>]</span> This view has also been supported in France, see <cite xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">Le vote des
Femmes</cite>, by Ferdinand Buisson, for evidence of women having in
ancient times voted and sat in the Parlements of France. Taine
also mentions the Countess of Perigord sitting in the <span xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">États</span> of
her province prior to the Revolution (<cite lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">Les Origines de la France
Contemporaire</cite>, <span xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">par</span> H. Taine, vol. i. p. 104).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-5" id="Footnote-5"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-5">5</a>]</span> <cite>Annals of a Yorkshire House</cite>, vol. ii. p. 319.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-6" id="Footnote-6"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-6">6</a>]</span> Report of the Manchester National Society for Women's
Suffrage, 1869.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-7" id="Footnote-7"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-7">7</a>]</span> <cite>The Life of Mrs. Norton</cite>, by Miss Jane Gray Perkins (John
Murray).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-8" id="Footnote-8"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-8">8</a>]</span> The date of this speech is given in Miss Blackburn's <cite>Record
of Woman's Suffrage</cite> as 1866, the only mistake I have found in her
careful and faithful history.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-9" id="Footnote-9"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-9">9</a>]</span> See the interesting picture in the staircase of the National
Portrait Gallery, London.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-10" id="Footnote-10"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-10">10</a>]</span> Morley's <cite>Life of Gladstone</cite>, vol. i. p. 571.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-11" id="Footnote-11"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-11">11</a>]</span> <cite>James Mill: a Biography</cite>, by Alexander Bain, LL.D., p. 215.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-12" id="Footnote-12"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-12">12</a>]</span> <cite>Representative Government</cite>, by J. S. Mill, pp. 175-180.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-13" id="Footnote-13"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-13">13</a>]</span> <cite>Dissertations and Discussions</cite>, by J. S. Mill, vol. ii. p. 417.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-14" id="Footnote-14"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-14">14</a>]</span> <cite>Autobiography</cite>, p. 241.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-15" id="Footnote-15"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-15">15</a>]</span> The census of 1911 shows that the excess of women over men is
in the proportion of 1068 women to 1000 men, and that this proportion
has changed but little during the last hundred and ten
years.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-16" id="Footnote-16"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-16">16</a>]</span> <cite>Record of Women's Suffrage</cite>, by Helen Blackburn, pp. 53, 54, 55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-17" id="Footnote-17"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-17">17</a>]</span> <cite>Record of Women's Suffrage</cite>, p. 190, by Helen Blackburn.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-18" id="Footnote-18"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-18">18</a>]</span> A few isolated associations of Liberal women had existed
before this. There was one at Bristol started in 1881; but nothing
was done on an extended scale till 1886.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-19" id="Footnote-19"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-19">19</a>]</span> An important new departure in journalism was taken by <cite>The
Standard</cite> in October 1911. This paper now devotes more than
a page daily to a full statement both of events and arguments
bearing on all sides of the suffrage and other women's questions.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-20" id="Footnote-20"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-20">20</a>]</span> See <cite>Outlines of the Women's Franchise Movement in New Zealand</cite>,
by W. Sydney Smith. Whitecombe &amp; Tombs, Ltd., Christchurch,
N.Z. 1905.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-21" id="Footnote-21"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-21">21</a>]</span> See Report by Sir Charles Lucas, who visited New Zealand on
behalf of the Colonial Office in 1907.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-22" id="Footnote-22"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-22">22</a>]</span> See <cite>Colonial Statesmen and Votes for Women</cite>, published by The
Freedom League, p. 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-23" id="Footnote-23"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-23">23</a>]</span> See letter from Miss Alice Stone Blackwell in <cite>Manchester
Guardian</cite>, July 12, 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-24" id="Footnote-24"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-24">24</a>]</span> See <cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite>, No. 33, p. 167.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-25" id="Footnote-25"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-25">25</a>]</span> The exact numbers in England and Wales (autumn 1911) are
fifteen on Town Councils (two being Mayors) and four on County
Councils.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-26" id="Footnote-26"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-26">26</a>]</span> As an example I quote the canvass of women municipal electors
in Reading made respectively by the suffragists in 1909 and anti-suffragists
in 1911. When the suffragists canvassed, the results
were:&mdash;
</p>



<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td align="center">In Favour</td>
    <td align="center">Against</td>
    <td align="center">Did not answer and Neutral</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">1047</td>
    <td align="center">60</td>
    <td align="center">467</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p>
When the anti-suffragists canvassed in 1910 the results were:&mdash;
</p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
<tr><td align="center">In Favour</td>
    <td align="center">Against</td>
    <td align="center">Did not answer and Neutral</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">166</td>
    <td align="center">1133</td>
    <td align="center">401</td></tr>
</table></div>


<p>
With such disparity as this between the two returns no conclusion
can possibly be drawn from either without further investigation
of the methods pursued.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-27" id="Footnote-27"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-27">27</a>]</span> See Statistical Abstract from the United Kingdom.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-28" id="Footnote-28"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-28">28</a>]</span> Quoted in Lord Morley's <cite>Studies in Literature</cite>, pp. 133, 134.
The reference there given for the extract is <cite>Order and Progress</cite>, by
Frederic Harrison, pp. 149-154.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-29" id="Footnote-29"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-29">29</a>]</span> <cite>Early History of Charles James Fox</cite>, by the <abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> Sir G. O.
Trevelyan, p. 449.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-30" id="Footnote-30"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-30">30</a>]</span> <cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite>, December 1910.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-31" id="Footnote-31"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-31">31</a>]</span> See p. <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-32" id="Footnote-32"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-32">32</a>]</span> See <cite>The Suffragette</cite>, by Miss E. Sylvia Pankhurst (Gay and
Hancock, 1911).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-33" id="Footnote-33"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-33">33</a>]</span> See <cite>Garibaldi and the Making of Italy</cite>, by G. M. Trevelyan,
p. 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-34" id="Footnote-34"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-34">34</a>]</span> Morley's <cite>Life of Gladstone</cite>, vol. iii. p. 371.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-35" id="Footnote-35"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-35">35</a>]</span> I have in my possession positive proof that orders were given
to the police not to arrest a particular lady whose name is well
known and highly respected in every part of the country.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-36" id="Footnote-36"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-36">36</a>]</span> I am requested by the Women's Freedom League to state
that they have never resorted to stone-throwing or to personal
assaults.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-37" id="Footnote-37"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-37">37</a>]</span> A third protest was published in December 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-38" id="Footnote-38"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-38">38</a>]</span> Morley's <cite>Life of Oliver Cromwell</cite>, pp. 232-3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-39" id="Footnote-39"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-39">39</a>]</span> See Summing up of Mr. Justice Avory in Hawkins <i>v.</i> Muff case.
<cite>A Warning to Liberal Stewards</cite>, published by the Men's Political
Union, 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-40" id="Footnote-40"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-40">40</a>]</span> <cite>More Tramps Abroad</cite>, by Mark Twain, p. 208.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-41" id="Footnote-41"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-41">41</a>]</span> See the Annual Report of the National Union of Women's
Suffrage Societies presented in March 1910.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-42" id="Footnote-42"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-42">42</a>]</span> <cite>Standard</cite>, Oct. 17, 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-43" id="Footnote-43"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-43">43</a>]</span> See resolution adopted by the executive committee of the
Women's Liberal Federation, quoted in <cite>Standard</cite>, October 30, 1911:&mdash;
</p>
<p>
"That ... the executive resolves that until definite promises are
made of a Government Reform Bill including women they will
support by all means in their power the Bill promoted by the
Conciliation Committee and will pursue with regard to amendments
to that Bill such a policy as circumstances show to be most likely
to secure for it a substantial third reading majority."</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-44" id="Footnote-44"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-44">44</a>]</span> See "Political Notes," <cite>Times</cite>, November 24, 1910.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-45" id="Footnote-45"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-45">45</a>]</span> The Woman's Social and Political Union dissented from this
view. They resumed militant tactics, and scenes of considerable
disorder occurred on November 21 and November 29, 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-46" id="Footnote-46"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-46">46</a>]</span> These speeches can be obtained from the Women's Liberal
Federation, 2 Victoria Street, London, S.W.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote-47" id="Footnote-47"></a><span class="label">[<a title="Return to text." href="#Anchor-47">47</a>]</span> The Corporation of Dublin authorised the Lord Mayor and
other officers to attend in their robes and present the Dublin
petition in person at the Bar of the House of Commons.</p></div>
</div>
<div class="chapter"></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span></p>



<h2>INDEX</h2>


<ul class="index"><li class="ifrst">Acton, Lord, on political violence, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>

<li class="indx">Adult Suffrage Bill, 1909, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1912, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">America, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">Amos, Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Anderson, Mrs. Garrett, M.D. <i>See</i> <a href="#Garrett">Garrett</a></li>

<li class="indx">Anti-Corn Law League, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>

<li class="indx">Anti-slavery movement in America, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Congress, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>

<li class="indx">Anti-Suffrage League, the, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>

<li class="indx"><cite>Anti-Suffrage Review</cite>, quoted, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li>

<li class="indx">Anti-suffragists, arguments of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; and the Insurance Bill, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; and municipal franchise, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; letter against Conciliation Bill, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; movement in United States, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; protest in <cite>Nineteenth Century</cite> (1889), <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; tactics of, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>-<a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>

<li class="indx">Ashton, Miss Margaret, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">Asquith, Mr., on facilities for Suffrage Bill, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on position of women under Manhood Suffrage Bill, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on women's political activity, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>

<li class="indx">Australia, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Bannerman, Sir H. Campbell, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>

<li class="indx">Becker, Miss Lydia, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>

<li class="indx">Begg, Mr. Faithfull, Women's Suffrage Bill of, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="indx">Birrell, Mr., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>

<li class="indx">Blackwell, Dr. Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Blake, Miss Jex, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Bodichon, Mrs., <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Borthwick, Sir Algernon, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>

<li class="indx">Brailsford, Mr. H. N., <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">Bright, Mr. Jacob, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">Bright, John, on Parliamentary Reform, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li class="indx">Brougham's Act, Lord, 1850, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>

<li class="indx">Browning, E. B., <cite>Aurora Leigh</cite>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Bryce, <abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> James, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">Burke on Dissenters' Petition, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>

<li class="indx">Butler, Mrs. Josephine, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">California, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">Canvassing, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>

<li class="indx">Chorlton <i>v.</i> Lings, case of, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li>

<li class="indx">Churchill, Lord Randolph, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>

<li class="indx">Churchill, Mr. Winston, on militant tactics, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>

<li class="indx">Clark, Mrs. Helen, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>

<li class="indx">Cobbe, Frances Power, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Cobden on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>

<li class="indx">Conciliation Committee, the, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">Conciliation Bill (Mr. Shackleton's), 1910, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; (Sir George Kemp's), 1911, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>-<a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Anti-Suffragists' protest against, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; petitions and resolutions in favour of, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>

<li class="indx">Condorcet, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>

<li class="indx">Contagious Diseases Acts, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Corrupt Practices Act, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">Creighton, Mrs., <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>

<li class="indx">Crimean War, the, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">Cromer, Lord, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>

<li class="indx">Cromwell, on gains by force, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Davies, Miss Emily, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Demonstrations, public, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>

<li class="indx">Despard, Mrs., <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>

<li class="indx">Disraeli, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>

<li class="indx">Dissenters' Petition, Burke on, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>

<li class="indx">Divorce Act, 1857, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>

<li class="indx">Dublin, Lord Mayor of, <a href="#Footnote-47" title="Go to footnote 47.">88 <i>n.</i></a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Electoral Reform Bill, 1912, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">Elmy, Mrs. Wolstenholme, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Fawcett, The <abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> H., <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>

<li class="indx">Finland, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">Fisher, Mr., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>

<li class="indx">Five Mile Act, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>

<li class="indx">Fry, Mrs. Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>


<li class="ifrst"><a id="Garrett"></a>Garrett, Miss Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>

<li class="indx">Garrison, William Lloyd, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>

<li class="indx">General Election, 1910, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>

<li class="indx">Gladstone, Mr., on Divorce Bill, 1857, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on household suffrage, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; opposition to Reform Bill, 1884, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on women's political activity, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>

<li class="indx">Godwin, William, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>

<li class="indx">Goschen, Lord, on agricultural labourers' franchise, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>

<li class="indx">Grey, Mrs. William, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Grey, Sir Edward, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">Guardianship of Children Act, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Gurney, Miss, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; <abbr title="Right Honourable">Rt. Hon.</abbr> Russell, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Haldane, Lord, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>

<li class="indx">Hall, Sir John, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>

<li class="indx">Harrison, Frederic, on powers of the elector, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>

<li class="indx">Herschell, Miss Caroline, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Hill, Miss Davenport, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Household Suffrage, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>

<li class="indx">Howard, Mr. G., Adult Suffrage Bill, 1909, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Iddesleigh, Lord. <i>See</i> <a href="#Northcote">Northcote</a></li>

<li class="indx">Indian Mutiny, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">Infants' Custody Act, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Insurance Bill, the, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>

<li class="indx">Isle of Man, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">James, Lord, on Corrupt Practices Act, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>

<li class="indx">Jameson, Mrs., <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Kemp, Sir George, Conciliation Bill (1911) introduced by, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">Knight, Anne, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Labouchere, Mr., attitude to Suffrage Bills, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">Langton, Lady Anna Gore, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Leavitt, Mrs., <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>

<li class="indx">Lees, Mrs., <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">Lloyd George, Mr., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>

<li class="indx">Local Government Qualification of Women's Act, 1907, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>

<li class="indx">Lyne, Sir William, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li>

<li class="indx">Lytton, Earl of, <a href="#Footnote-3" title="Go to footnote 3.">7 <i>n.</i></a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">MacDonald, Mr. Ramsay, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>

<li class="indx">M'Laren, Mrs. Duncan, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">M'Laren, Mr. Walter, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>

<li class="indx"><cite>Manchester Guardian, The</cite>, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>

<li class="indx">Manhood Suffrage Bill, 1912, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">Markham, Miss Violet, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">Married Women's Property Act, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">Martineau, Harriet, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Medical profession opened to women, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Militant Societies, the, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; election policy of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li class="indx">Mill, James, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">Mill, John Stuart, on enfranchisement of women, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; and Women's Parliamentary Petition, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Women's Suffrage Amendment Bill, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">Mill, Mrs. John Stuart, on Enfranchisement of Women, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>

<li class="indx">Morley, Viscount, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>

<li class="indx">Mott, Lucretia, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">Müller, Mrs., <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>

<li class="indx">Municipal Corporation Act, 1835, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>

<li class="indx">Municipal suffrage, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Anti-Suffragist support of, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; election policy, of <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; protests against militant tactics, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>

<li class="indx">National Women's Liberal Association, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li>

<li class="indx">New Zealand, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; electoral roll of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>

<li class="indx">Nightingale, Miss Florence, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx"><a id="Northcote"></a>Northcote, Sir Stafford, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>

<li class="indx">Norton, <abbr title="Honourable">Hon.</abbr> Mrs., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Norway, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Pankhurst, Dr., <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li>

<li class="indx">Pankhurst, Mrs. and Miss, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="indx">People's Suffrage Federation, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>

<li class="indx">Peterloo Massacre, the, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>

<li class="indx">Petitions from Town Councils, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>

<li class="indx">Pochin, Mrs., <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Poor Law Guardians, qualifications of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>

<li class="indx">Primrose League, the, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>

<li class="indx">Public meetings and demonstrations, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Rathbone, Miss Eleanor, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">Reeves, W. P., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>

<li class="indx">Reform Acts, exclusion of females, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>

<li class="indx">Reform Bill, 1832 and 1867, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1884, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>-<a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1912, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">Rollit, Sir A., Women's Suffrage Bill (1892) introduced by, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">Royal Astronomical Society, women members of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Runciman, Mr., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">School Boards, women members of, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>

<li class="indx">Seddon, Mr. Richard, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>

<li class="indx">Serjeant Talfourd's Act, 1839, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx">Shackleton, Mr., Conciliation Bill, 1910, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">Shaw, Dr. Anna, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">Shaw, Mrs. Bernard, on Reform Suffrage Bill, 1912, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>

<li class="indx">Sheffield Female Political Association, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>

<li class="indx">Sherriff, Miss, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Sidgwick, Henry, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Smith, Mr. Goldwin, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>

<li class="indx">Smith, Sydney, on education for women, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>

<li class="indx">Societies, Suffrage, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>

<li class="indx">South African War, the, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="indx">Somerville, Mrs., <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stanfield, Sir James, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stanger, Mr., Women's Suffrage Bill (1908) introduced by, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stanhope, Mrs. Spencer, quoted, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stevenson, Miss Flora, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>

<li class="indx">Stuart, Mr. James, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Suffrage Societies, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>

<li class="indx">Swanwick, Miss, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Taylor, Mrs. Peter, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">Test Act, the, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>

<li class="indx">Thackeray, in <cite>Esmond</cite>, on domestic tyranny, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li class="indx"><cite>Times, The</cite>, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li>

<li class="indx">Town Councils, petitions from, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>

<li class="indx">Town and County Councils Qualification Bill, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">Trades Union Congress (Aberdeen) and Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>

<li class="indx">Twain, Mark, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">United States, Anti-suffrage movement in, <a href="#Page_47">47</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">University education opened to women, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">Unwin, Mrs. Cobden, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Voters' Petition, the, 1910, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>


<li class="ifrst">Walpole, Horace, on Mary Wollstonecraft, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>

<li class="indx">Ward, Mrs. Humphry, on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on Conciliation Bill, 1911, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; on representation in local government, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; political activity of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>

<li class="indx">Webb, Mrs. Sidney, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>

<li class="indx">Wheeler, Mrs., on Women's Suffrage, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>

<li class="indx">Wollstonecraft, Mary, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women, in local government, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; as members of School Boards, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; as municipal voters, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; as Poor Law Guardians, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; political activity of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Freedom League, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Liberal Federation, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; and Conciliation Bill, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, U.S.A., <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Social and Political Union, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; election policy of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Suffrage, arguments against, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; beginnings of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Suffrage, Conservative objections to, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; not a party question, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; &mdash;&mdash; support of, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; historical aspect of, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; in Greater Britain, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; in Isle of Man, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; in other countries, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; in United States, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Liberal objections to, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; &mdash;&mdash; support of, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; pioneers of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; political aspect of, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; position in 1880-1884, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>-<a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; position under Reform Bill, 1912, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; recent developments, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; resolutions and petitions in favour of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; Societies, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; summary of movement, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Suffrage Amendment (J. S. Mill's), 1867, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Suffrage Amendment Bill (Mr. Woodall's), 1884, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>

<li class="indx">Women's Suffrage Bill, 1870 (Mr. Jacob Bright's), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1892 (Sir A. Rollit's), <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1897 (Mr. F. Begg's), <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1908 (Mr. Stanger's), <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1910 (Mr. Shackleton's), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li class="indx">&mdash;&mdash; 1911 (Sir G. Kemp's), <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>. <i>See also</i> Summary, p. <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>

<li class="indx">Woodall, Mr., Suffrage Amendment Bill (1884) introduced by, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li>

<li class="indx">Wyoming, Women's Suffrage in, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li></ul>


<p class="center big mt2">
Printed by <span class="smcap">Ballantyne, Hanson</span> &amp; Co.<br />
Edinburgh &amp; London<br />
</p>

<hr class="chap" />



<h2>THE PEOPLE'S BOOKS</h2>

<p class="center big">THE FIRST SIXTY VOLUMES</p>

<div class="blockquot">The volumes now (February 1912) issued are marked with
an asterisk. A further twelve volumes
will be issued in May</div>


<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">

<tr><td class="center big" colspan="3">SCIENCE</td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr vt">1.</td><td class="tdl vt">Introduction to Science</td><td class="tdl vt">By C. D. Whetham, M.A., F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">2.</td><td class="tdl vt">Embryology&mdash;The Beginnings of Life</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. Gerald Leighton, M.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">3.</td><td class="tdl vt">Biology&mdash;The Science of Life</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. W. D. Henderson, M.A., B.Sc., Ph.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">4.</td><td class="tdl vt">Animal Life</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. E. W. MacBride D.Sc., F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*5.</td><td class="tdl vt">Botany; The Modern Study of Plants</td><td class="tdl vt">By M. C. Stopes, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">6.</td><td class="tdl vt">Bacteriology</td><td class="tdl vt">By W. E. Carnegie Dickson, M.D., B.Sc.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">7.</td><td class="tdl vt">Geology</td><td class="tdl vt">By the Rev. T. G. Bonney, F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">8.</td><td class="tdl vt">Evolution</td><td class="tdl vt">By E. S. Goodrich, M.A., F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">9.</td><td class="tdl vt">Darwin</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. W. Garstang, M.A., D.Sc., F.Z.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*10.</td><td class="tdl vt">Heredity</td><td class="tdl vt">By J. A. S. Watson, B.Sc.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">11.</td><td class="tdl vt">Chemistry of Non-living Things</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. E. C. C. Baly, F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*12.</td><td class="tdl vt">Organic Chemistry</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. J. B. Cohen, B.Sc., F.R.S.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*13.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Principles of Electricity</td><td class="tdl vt">By Norman R. Campbell, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">14.</td><td class="tdl vt">Radiation</td><td class="tdl vt">By P. Phillips, D.Sc.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*15.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Science of the Stars</td><td class="tdl vt">By E. W. Maunder, F.R.A.S., of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">16.</td><td class="tdl vt">Light, according to Modern Science</td><td class="tdl vt">By P. Phillips, D.Sc.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">17.</td><td class="tdl vt">Weather-Science</td><td class="tdl vt">By R. G. F. K. Lempfert, M.A., of the Meteorological Office.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">18.</td><td class="tdl vt">Hypnotism</td><td class="tdl vt">By Alice Hutchison, M.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">19.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Baby: A Mother's Book by a Mother</td><td class="tdl vt">By a University Woman.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">20.</td><td class="tdl vt">Youth and Sex&mdash;Dangers and Safeguards for Boys and Girls</td><td class="tdl vt">By Mary Scharlieb, M.D., M.S., and G. E. C. Pritchard, M.A., M.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">21.</td><td class="tdl vt">Marriage and Motherhood&mdash;A Wife's Handbook</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. S. Davidson, M.B., F.R.C.S.E.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">22.</td><td class="tdl vt">Lord Kelvin</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. E. Russell, M.A., D.Sc., M.I.E.E.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">23.</td><td class="tdl vt">Huxley</td><td class="tdl vt">By Professor G. Leighton, M.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">24.</td><td class="tdl vt">Sir W. Huggins and Spectroscopic Astronomy</td><td class="tdl vt">By E.W. Maunder, F.R.A.S., of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.</td></tr>

<tr><td class="center big" colspan="3"><br />PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION</td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr vt">25.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Meaning of Philosophy</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. A. E. Taylor, M. A., F.B A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*26.</td><td class="tdl vt">Henri Bergson: The Philosophy of Change</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. Wildon Carr.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">27.</td><td class="tdl vt">Psychology</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. J. Watt, M.A., Ph.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">28.</td><td class="tdl vt">Ethics</td><td class="tdl vt">By the Rev. Canon Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt., F.B.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">29.</td><td class="tdl vt">Kant's Philosophy</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. D. Lindsay, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">30.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Teaching of Plato</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. D. Lindsay, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">31.</td><td class="tdl vt">Buddhism</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids, M.A., F.B.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*32.</td><td class="tdl vt">Roman Catholicism</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. B. Coxon. Preface, Mgr. R. H. Benson.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">33.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Oxford Movement</td><td class="tdl vt">By Wilfrid P. Ward.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">34.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Bible in the Light of the Higher Criticism</td><td class="tdl vt">By the Rev. Principal W. F. Adeney, M.A., D.D., and the Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">35.</td><td class="tdl vt">Cardinal Newman</td><td class="tdl vt">By Wilfrid Meynell.</td></tr>


<tr><td class="center big" colspan="3"><br />HISTORY</td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr vt">36.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Growth of Freedom</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. W. Nevinson.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">37.</td><td class="tdl vt">Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. F. M. Powicke, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">38.</td><td class="tdl vt">Oliver Cromwell</td><td class="tdl vt">By Hilda Johnstone, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*39.</td><td class="tdl vt">Mary Queen of Scots</td><td class="tdl vt">By E. O'Neill, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">40.</td><td class="tdl vt">Cecil Rhodes</td><td class="tdl vt">By Ian Colvin.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">41.</td><td class="tdl vt">Julius Cæsar: Soldier, Statesman, Emperor</td><td class="tdl vt">By Hilary Hardinge.</td></tr>

<tr><td class="center" colspan="2">History of England&mdash;</td></tr>


<tr><td class="tdr vt">42.</td><td class="tdl vt">England in the Making</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. F. J. C. Hearnshaw, M.A., LL.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">43.</td><td class="tdl vt">Medieval England</td><td class="tdl vt">By E. O'Neill, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">44.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Monarchy and the People</td><td class="tdl vt">By W. T. Waugh, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">45.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Industrial Revolution</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. Jones, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">46.</td><td class="tdl vt">Empire and Democracy</td><td class="tdl vt">By G. S. Veitch, M.A.</td></tr>


<tr><td class="center big" colspan="3"><br />SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC</td></tr>

<tr><td class="tdr vt">*47.</td><td class="tdl vt">Women's Suffrage&mdash;A Short History of a Great Movement</td><td class="tdl vt">By M. G. Fawcett, LL.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">48.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Working of the British System of Government to-day</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. Ramsay Muir, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">49.</td><td class="tdl vt">An Introduction to Economic Science</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. H. O. Meredith, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">50.</td><td class="tdl vt">Socialism</td><td class="tdl vt">By F. B. Kirkman, B.A.</td></tr>



<tr><td class="center big" colspan="3"><br />LETTERS</td></tr>



<tr><td class="tdr vt">*51.</td><td class="tdl vt">Shakespeare</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. C. H. Herford, Litt.D.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">52.</td><td class="tdl vt">Wordsworth</td><td class="tdl vt">By Miss Rosaline Masson.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*53.</td><td class="tdl vt">Pure Gold&mdash;A Choice of Lyrics and Sonnets</td><td class="tdl vt">By H. C. O'Neill.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">54.</td><td class="tdl vt">Francis Bacon</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. A. R. Skemp, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">55.</td><td class="tdl vt">The Brontës</td><td class="tdl vt">By Miss Flora Masson.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">56.</td><td class="tdl vt">Carlyle</td><td class="tdl vt">By the Rev. L. MacLean Watt.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">*57.</td><td class="tdl vt">Dante</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. G. Ferrers Howell.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">58.</td><td class="tdl vt">Ruskin</td><td class="tdl vt">By A. Blyth Webster, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">59.</td><td class="tdl vt">Common Faults in Writing English</td><td class="tdl vt">By Prof. A. R. Skemp, M.A.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tdr vt">60.</td><td class="tdl vt">A Dictionary of Synonyms</td><td class="tdl vt">By Austin K. Gray, B.A.</td></tr>
</table></div>


<p class="center big mt2">
LONDON: T. C. &amp; E. C. JACK, 67 LONG ACRE, W.C., &amp; EDINBURGH<br />
NEW YORK: THE DODGE PUBLISHING CO.<br />
</p>

<div class="transnote">
<h2>Transcriber's Notes</h2>
<p>Minor punctuation and printer errors repaired.</p>
<p>Footnote anchors for footnotes 30 and 37 were missing in the original and have been inserted.</p>
</div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 48614 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-01-06 02:15:38 +0000