LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND FROM 1885 TO 1918 STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume XCVI] [Number 2 Whole Number 218 PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND FROM 1885 TO 1918 BY HOMER LAWRENCE MORRIS, Ph.D. Nero Dork COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SALE AGENTS NEW YORK : LONGMANS, GREEN & Co. LONDON : P. S. KING ft SON, LTD. TQ2I COPYRIGHT, 1921 BY HOMER LAWRENCE MORRIS CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 9 CHAPTER II THE ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING BETWEEN 1855 AND 1909 14 General Election of 1906 15 Pluring Voting Bill of 1906 17 Election and Registration Bill (London), 1908 24 London Election Bill of 1909 26 CHAPTER III THE EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE ... 28 The beginning of Parliamentary Agitation 29 Slack's Women's Suffrage Bill of 1905 32 The beginning of the Militant Movement 34 Dickinson's Women's Enfranchisement Bill of 1907 42 Stanger's Women's Enfranchisement Bill of 1908 46 Deputation to Mr. Asquith . . 49 Howard's Adult Franchise Bill of 1909 53 General Election of January, 1910 56 CHAPTER IV WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BECOMES A PRACTICAL ISSUE ... 60 Conciliation Bill of 1910 61 General Election of December, 1910 69 Kemp's Conciliation Bill of 1911 70 Negotiation for Government Facilities 72 Announcement of the Reform Bill 76 Agg-Gardner's Conciliation Bill of 1912 81 211] 5 6 CONTENTS [212 . PAGE CHAPTER V THE FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 . . 85 The Franchise and Registration Bill in the House of Commons. . 86 The Withdrawal of the Bill 95 CHAPTER VI ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN IN 1913 AND 1914 . . 103 Dickinson's Women's Suffrage Bill of 1913 105 Militancy in 1914 109 CHAPTER VII ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING IN 1913 AND 1914. . 113 Plural Voting Bill of 1913 114 London Election Bill of 1913 116 Plural Voting Bill of 1914 ....... 117 CHAPTER VIII EMERGENCY PARLIAMENTARY AND REGISTRATION LEGISLATION . 120 Parliament and Registration Act of 1916 120 Select Committee of 1916 122 Special Registration Bill 125 CHAPTER IX REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1918 128 Conference on Electoral Reform 129 Resolutions of Conference Presented to Commons 132 Representation of the People Bill of 1917 134 Parliamentary Franchise for Men 136 University Franchise for Men 139 Local Government Franchise for Men 140 Women's Suffrage 143 Franchise Qualifications for Women 145 Special Provisions for Persons in War Service 150 Qualifying Period. . . 152 The Question of Plural Voting 153 Provisions as to Disqualifications 157 Registration 159 Expenses of Registration 161 Proportional Representation 162 Alternative Voting 164 213] CONTENTS 7 PAGE Polls to be held on one day at a General Election 167 Penalty for Illegal Voting 168 Voting by Absent Electors 169 Deposit by Candidates at Parliamentary Elections 171 Returning Officers 171 Election Expenses 172 Application of Bill to Ireland 174 Application of Bill to Scotland 176 Redistribution 177 Proportional Representation 180 Alternative Voting 181 Disqualification of Conscientious Objectors 182 Redistribution in Ireland 185 The Bill in the House of Lords 187 Women's Suffrage in the House of Lords 188 Proportional Representation and Alternative Voting in the '"House of Lords 188 Divisions of Constituencies into Polling Districts 190 Special Provision for Registration of Freemen 191 Struggle between the Lords and Commons over Proportional Rep- resentation and Alternative Voting 192 Redistribution 198 Proportional Representation finally defeated 199 Conclusion 109 APPENDIX THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, DECEMBER, 1918 . . . 201 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE history of the franchise reform bills in England during the nineteenth century represents in a fairly ac- curate way the struggle for democracy in that country. The basis of the state was gradually broadened by these franchise reforms to include within its political scope a larger part of the population. The disfranchised sections of the population in their struggle for political rights worked, as always, under a great handicap. Since they were without political power they had either to create a general sentiment for their cause which would compel the Government to grant concessions or to induce a political party to sponsor their cause. The party leaders recognized that any radical extension of the franchise was fraught with unknown political eventualities. It was for this reason that the three great electoral reforms in England during the nineteenth century were periods of such great national excitement and intense party an- tagonism. The political powers were so strongly en- trenched, and their fear of the people was so great that only certain classes were admitted to political rights at each stage of the franchise reform. The first fact to appreciate in connection with the Eng- lish franchise system is that when the new extensions of the franchise were granted, the old system was not re- codified and all the old qualifications abolished, but new qualifications were simply added. As a result of this 215] 9 10 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [ 2 i6 process the old rights and qualifications extending back to feudal days continued to form a part of the franchise system. 1 This naturally resulted in anomalies and gross inconsistencies. The growth of democratic ideas made this antiquated system seem intolerable. A brief state- ment of the chief causes of grievance will serve to intro- duce the problem in its complicated aspects. In England the right of franchise was never granted to a man as an individual, nor indeed was it so granted by the Act of 1918. It was, on the contrary, granted to the individual because of his ownership, occupation, resi- dence, service, right as a lodger, or by virtue of being a graduate of some particular university. This system re- sulted in the practice of plural voting that is, an elector could vote in every constituency in which he possessed the necessary qualifications. The exact number of these plural votes cannot be determined, but in 1910 there were, it was estimated, between 500,000 and 525,000. The character of the political controversy and the part- isan spirit back of the demand for the abolition of plural voting was intensified by the fact that at least eighty per cent of the plural voters were affiliated with the Conser- vative party. 2 The abolition of this system became one of the cardinal demands of the Liberal party and gave zest to the agitations for other franchise reforms. Another cause of grievance was the system of registra- tion. The franchise laws in England were not as liberal as they might at first appear, for an elector was only a potential voter until his name was placed on the current register. In order to be placed upon the register all 1 Anson, Law and Custom of Constitution (4th edition 1909, revised 1911), vol. i, pp. 101-123. 2 Porritt, " Barriers against Democracy," Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxvi, p. 8. 2i 7 ] INTRODUCTION H voters, except owners and freemen, must have been in occupation of the qualifying premises for one year pre- ceding the fifteenth of July, and the register became effective the first of the following January. 1 Thus the law required twelve months continuous occupation in a constituency, and a minimum of eighteen months must elapse before an elector could actually vote. If an elector moved into a constituency shortly after the fifteenth of July it was almost thirty months before he became an actual voter in that constituency. This requirement re- sulted in the disfranchisement of a vast number of elec- tors, especially among casual laborers and the great in- dustrial population that moved frequently. This also had its partisan aspect because it affected the Liberal and Labor parties more adversely than the Conservative party and led to a demand to shorten the qualifying period, which in turn involved the whole question of the regis- tration system. The difference in the size of the electoral districts also resulted in great political inequalities. The redistribu- tion of seats under the Act of 1885 was at best only a rough approximation to equal electoral districts. The industrial changes of the following years resulted in great shifts in population. Since there was no provision for periodic redistribution, gross inequalities developed which became a mockery to the principle of equal repre- sentation. In 1911 the constituency of Newry in Ire- land, with a population of 12,841, and that of Romford in Essex, with a population of 312,804, each had a single representative in Parliament. The disproportion was twenty-four to one. The disparity with Durham, the smallest constituency in England, with a population 1 Rogers, On Elections, vol. i, pp. 61-63, 125. 12 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [218 of 15,986, was almost as great. These inequalities led to an insistent demand for a redistribution of seats. At the time of the Reform Bill of 1884 the demand for women's suffrage was of little more than academic in- terest, but the feminist movement developed rapidly. This struggle of women against prejudices, custom, and tradition, against entrenched political power and vested interests, and against the divisions within their own ranks, makes one of the most thrilling chapters in the fight for political rights. The task was the more diffi- cult in England because it was a question that ran athwart party lines ; neither of the two dominant parties was able to make a party issue of it. Even after a ma- jority of the Liberals, as individuals, had expressed them- selves in favor of the principle, they were never as a party willing to risk their political life upon the issue, because they were convinced that the popular demand for it was not deep-seated enough to require action. It was, therefore, only in the cataclysm of war that the women of England were able to convince the Govern- ment of their real strength and of their value to the state. It was under such conditions that the franchise was finally extended to them, England being the first of the Great Powers of Europe to enfranchise women. It is the purpose of this study to trace since 1885 the history of the movement to eliminate these political inequalities, to abolish anomalies and to extend the scope of the franchise. Of these reforms only two aroused any very great interest, plural voting and the enfranchise- ment of women. They will accordingly occupy chief consideration, and special attention will be given to the parliamentary development of these reforms. The ques- tion of plural voting never attracted any very great at- tention outside political circles and never became a sub- 219] INTRODUCTION ! 3 ject of popular interest, but it did cause a great deal of agitation in Parliament. The question of women's suffrage, however, was one upon which the attention of the nation was finally focused. No attempt will be made to follow the entire development of the women's suffrage movement; it will be discussed only in so far as it is necessary to give the proper background for its parliamentary history. Al- though a multitude of bills were introduced into Parlia- ment dealing with these matters, they were all defeated except the Representation of the People Bill of 1917, yet each one played a part in the crystalization of public sentiment. It was this persistent agitation and unceas- ing effort of the reform advocates that made possible the Act of 1918. The reforms will be traced separately ex- cept when the movements were merged in 1912 and again in 1917. CHAPTER II ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING BETWEEN 1885 AND 1909 THERE was very little discussion, either by the public or in Parliament, concerning the question of franchise or electoral reforms for several years after the passage of the Redistribution Act of 1885. This silence was broken in 1891 when a resolution was introduced 1 which pro- vided that the laws relating to qualification and reg- istration of parliamentary electors should be simplified. 2 But the Government showed no disposition to give any time for the discussion of the question so that with its first introduction the resolution was defeated. In the years immediately following, bills were introduced to abolish plural voting, to establish manhood suffrage, to reduce the qualifying period, and to hold all elections on the same day. These bills were invariably defeated and aroused little interest either in or out of Parliament. 3 During the ascendency of the Unionist party in the decade following their success at the polls in 1895 the question of franchise reform received little consideration. The Liberals were too weak and torn with dissensions to be able to make any formidable demands. Every time 1 Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, vol. 351 : 40-50. * It provided that a person could not vote in more than one electoral division, and the time of qualification was reduced to three months. 3 Bills were introduced in 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895. 14 [220 221 ] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 15 the party introduced any bill looking toward a reform of the franchise it was met with the statement from the Unionists that such a reform could be considered only in connection with the question of redistribution. " One man, one value " must be dealt with at the same time as "one man, one vote". But in spite of their great major- ity the Unionists showed little enthusiasm for the con- summation of either reform. It fact it was not until the last session of the Unionist Parliament that the subject was even broached by the Government itself. The activity of the Government, however, went no farther than the appointment of a Boundary Commission to study the question, and a promise by the Prime Min- ister that a bill dealing with the whole question of redis- tribution and electoral reform would be introduced the following year. The sudden resignation of Mr. Balfour in December, 1905, relieved him of the responsibility of fulfilling this obligation. Thus for two decades follow- ing the acts of the 8o's very little interest was manifested in the question of franchise and electoral reforms. General Election of 1906 The election of 1906 marked an epoch in English political life. The Unionists had been losing in the recent by-elections, and the returns of the general elec- tion demonstrated that they had lost the confidence of the country. When Mr. Chamberlain in 1903 raised the question of the protective tariff, it served as nothing else had to divide the strength of the Unionists and to unite the divided ranks of the Liberals. The Liberal leaders were not slow to seize this opportunity to unite their own party and to appeal to the country squarely upon the question of free trade versus protection. This was the one issue which the Liberals constantly discussed !6 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [ 2 22 and they did not permit minor questions to confuse the voters. The results of the election fully justified their political sagacity. A total of 6,555,301 votes were cast ; of these 4,026,- 704 were cast for Liberal, Nationalist, and Labor candi- dates; only 2,528,597 for Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. As a result the Liberals and their allies had a clear majority of 354 members in the House of Com- mons, the party strength being 374 Liberals, 84 National- ists, 54 Laborites, as against 131 Conservatives and 27 Liberal Unionists. Such an overwhelming victory placed the Government in a position to carry out its program, at least so far as the House of Commons was concerned. The dominant issue in the election did not require im- mediate legislative action by the Government since it had been really one of opposition to change. The Gov- ernment was, therefore, free to carry out the other parts of the Liberal program which had been very largely in the background during the campaign. The Liberal victory meant the revival of the attempt to secure fran- chise reform, which was first directed towards the aboli- tion of plural voting. For years this had been one of the cardinal demands of the party. The principle was annually reaffirmed at the meetings of the National Lib- eral Federation that no elector should have more than one vote. The campaign speeches indicated, however, that the question played no important part in the elec- tion, although it was mentioned in most of the election addresses and it was clearly stated as one of the demands of the party. In his first formal address delivered at Albert Hall after he was appointed Prime Minister, Sir H. Campbell- Bannerman, having spoken of the program for reform said : " Do not let us forget that for these purposes our 223] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING instrument that is, the British Parliament- made effective and ready. We must as opportunities afford restore its impaired authority, develop its strength and by reforming its electoral methods, bring it into closer touch with the life of the people." 1 Plural Voting Bill of 1906 In the speech from the Throne at the opening of the session the attention of Parliament was directed to the advisability of preventing plural voting in parliamentary elections. 2 On May 2, 1906, a bill embodying this rec- ommendation was introduced for the Government by Mr. Harcourt, the First Commissioner of Works. It was a brief bill providing that a person registered as a parliamentary elector in more than one constituency could vote only in the one which he definitely selected as his voting place. 3 In selecting a voting constituency the elector would be required to send a notice of his selection to the clerk of the county council or town clerk who would be responsible for printing the parlia- mentary register. The name was to appear on the reg- ister in subsequent years so long as there was no inter- ruption in qualifications and so long as the selection was not withdrawn. The law at that time prohibited an elector with qualifications in more than one division of a borough from voting in more than one division at a single election. 4 By the bill the Government proposed to extend this principle to the country as a whole, and to abolish plural voting between boroughs and counties as it already had been abolished between the divisions of a single borough. 1 The Times, December 22, 1905, p. 7. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 152: 24. 1 Public Bills, 1906, vol. iv, Bill 187. * Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Viet., c. 23), s. 8. 1 8 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [224 The greatest amount of discussion during the debates on the bill was concerned with the motives that inspired it. The Opposition maintained that it was introduced for political reasons to deprive the Conservatives of their votes. Thus The Times in an editorial comment on the introduction of the bill said, " Its introduction can only be regarded as another of the sops thrown, regardless of principle or coherence, by the present Government to the different sections of the heterogeneous coalition upon which it depends." 1 The Spectator 1 opposed the bill very strongly because it dealt with the subject of "one man, one vote," while it left untouched the far greater evil of the unequal value of the vote. The two reforms, it maintained, should be dealt with at the same time. 3 The Tribune, a Liberal paper, did not attempt to conceal the party advantage which it believed would re- sult from the passage of the bill. 4 The bill came up for second reading on May 14. The Liberals opposed the system of plural voting as an an- achronism, a survival of former privileges which ought to be abolished in favor of a more democratic system of voting. As pointed out by Mr. Harcourt, the system of plural voting gave the land holders an undue power in the determination of the policy of the Government, be- cause their land qualified them to vote in different con- stituencies, while men who held personal and intangible property had but one vote. 5 It was to this overrepre- 1 The Times, May 3, 1906, p. 9. 2 While a Unionist paper, it supported the Liberals during the recent election on account of their opposition to the principle of the protective tariff. * The Spectator, May 5, 1906, p. 697. * The Tribune, May 3, 1906, p. 6. * Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 157: 234-41. 225] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING ig sentation of the landed classes that the Liberals had at- tributed a large number of their political defeats. This discussion involved the question of the real basis of English representation. In setting forth the Liberal theory of representation Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman voiced the conviction of his party when he said, " I re- pudiate the idea that a man votes because of his prop- erty. I repudiate altogether that theory. If it is a theory which has tradition and historic weight behind it, then the sooner we pass this bill and get free from the idea the better, because in the future, whatever it may have been in the past, the voting power of this country must be in the voter himself because he is a qualified voter, and not on account of his property." x The plural voters did not lack staunch supporters to defend their cause from the standpoint of the principle of govern- ment. Mr. Forster stated the Conservative viewpoint when he said that property was at the basis of every vote in the country, and therefore the system of plural voting was in harmony with the English principle of franchise. 2 He contended that a man did not vote be- cause he was a man, since such a policy would constitute manhood suffrage ; he exercised the right because he was the owner of a freehold property of a minimum value, or was a lease holder or occupier. Plural voting, he argued, was in accord with the English principle of representation of property through the localities. The Opposition attacked the bill also on the ground that it was piecemeal legislation that instead of deal- ing with the whole problem it dealt simply with one of the electoral anomalies, the abolition of which was of 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 157:298. *Ibid., 208-14. 20 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [226 y vl j! j "^ '' * party advantage to the Liberals. As an evidence of this they cited the great disparity detween the large and the small constituencies. The examples of Kilkenny and Newry with their small number of electors and Romford and Walthamston with their large electorates, were fre- quently mentioned during the debate. While the bill did not include redistribution, Sir Charles Dilke argued that its effect would be to reduce the disparities and to take a step toward " one vote, one value." This would be especially true, he maintained, between England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, because there were fewer plural voters in Wales and Scotland than in England and virtually none in Ireland. 1 The Conservatives attempted to place the Government in the position of opposing re- distribution. In answer to this charge Mr. Dobson pointed out that a majority of the members of the party in addressing their constituencies had pledged themselves in favor of a redistribution bill. 2 He contended, how- ever, that such a reform should be the work of an old, not of a new Parliament. In spite of the protests of the Opposition the bill passed a second reading by the vote of 403 to 95. The question of university representation caused more discussion during the committee stage than any other single amendment. Mr. Cave moved to amend the bill so that it would not apply to university constituencies. 3 He was ably supported in this by Mr. Balfour, who ap- peared as the chief champion of university representation. They both insisted that the question of the perpetuation of the system of university representation was brought directly before the House by the bill. University electors 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 157:215-21. * Ibid., 259. 9 Ibid., vol. 163: 201-4. 227] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 2 l were granted the right of selection in the bill the same as any other elector, but the Opponents of the bill main- tained that this was only an insidious method adopted by the Government which would ultimately lead to a de- mand for a complete abolition of the system since a uni- versity elector would probably select his place of resi- dence as his voting constituency. The policy of the Government was defended by Mr. Harcourt. 1 He denied any intention on the part of the Government of abolishing the system of university repre- sentation, the whole contention of the Government being that they were treating the university voter the same as other plural voters. Both in the House and in the press the division over the question was purely on party lines. The vote to exclude the university constituency from ap- plication in the bill failed by a vote of 92 to 326. Other attempts to save the university vote met the same fate. According to the bill the plural voter, in order to get on the register the first time, had to make a definite selection ; otherwise he could not vote at all. This prin- ciple was the cause of a great deal of discussion and numerous amendments were offered, some of them by the Opposition in their attempt to defeat the purposes of the bill and others by Liberals who believed that the bill, as framed, was unworkable. The plan urged most strongly was that the place of residence should be the voting constituency. This would obviate the necessity of making a selection except where an elector had more than one residence. 3 The Government, however, insisted that the principle of selection was an integral part of the 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 163 : 204-6. 'Amendments offered by Sir Charles Dilke, a friend of the Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 163: 475, and by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, an opponent of the Bill, ibid., 489. 22 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [228 bill and could not be changed. It was not, it said, too great a hardship to ask the plural voter to make a selec- tion once in his lifetime. This, it pointed out, was no greater hardship than the requirement of the lodgers who had to register every year in order to have the right to vote. During the whole course of the bill in the House of Commons the Government did not accept an amendment which altered in any way the principle of the measure, although several amendments were adopted which changed slightly the machinery of the bill. With these changes the bill passed a third reading on December 3, 1906, by the vote of 333 to 104. The bill was read a first time the next day in the House of Lords and came up for the second reading on December 10. No new arguments were presented by the Lords that had not been considered by the Com- mons. The discussion attracted little attention and the time devoted to the bill occupied less than one sitting. It was a foregone conclusion that the Lords would defeat the measure. On the motion for a second reading the bill was defeated by the vote of 43 to 143. * The debates indicate a rather clear-cut issue between the parties. The Liberals demanded the abolition of plural voting as inconsistent with the principle of de- mocracy. They insisted that the individual elector rather than property was the basis of representation. At the same time they recognized the party advantage that would come to them from the abolition of plural voting. The fact that in many constituencies during the past two decades these very members of Parliament had been de- feated, largely, as they believed, by the ballots of non- 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 166: 1518. 229] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 23 resident voters, naturally lent zest to the demand for reform. The Conservatives, being largely representa- tives of the landed and propertied classes, looked upon the franchise as the guardian of the interests of property and viewed with alarm the democratic demand of "one man, one vote." They met this with the slogan, " one vote, one value." During their term of office, however, they had shown no enthusiasm for such a reform except in so far as it applied to a reduction of the Irish repre- sentation. They never advocated redistribution in con- nection with the great industrial centers in England. They had their eyes fixed upon the immediate political effects just as the Liberals had. Having so recently suf- fered an overwhelming defeat they were going to resist with all possible means any inroads upon their ancient privileges. Two days after the Lords defeated the Plural Voting Bill the House of Commons rejected en bloc the proposed amendments to the Educational Bill which had been made by the Lords. These events brought into the very center of political discussion the whole question of the constitutional status and the power of the House of Lords. The Liberals maintained that since the Govern- ment had to administer the laws, it must also have con- trol of making the laws. They insisted that the Govern- ment could not be constantly hampered by an irresponsi- ble body of men who had nothing to do with the admin- istrative work of the government. The Liberals were not slow to make this one of their chief party issues. At the meeting of The National Liberal Federation held at Plymouth in 1907 a resolution was carried unanimously which condemned the House of Lords for the flagrant misuse of its power. 1 At this same meeting Sir Henry ^Proceedings of National Liberal Federation, 1907, p. 56. 24 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [230 Campbell-Bannerman pledged his party to carry this matter to a serious and decisive test and served notice to that effect on the Lords. 1 One pamphleteer pointed out that for thirty-eight years the Lords had not defeated a bill which had been passed and supported by the Con- servative party. But during that time they had rejected* defeated, or mutilated twenty-six bills supported by the Liberals, eight of these during the years 1906 and 1907. 2 With the menacing attitude of the Lords the Liberals realized more fully the necessity of abolishing the system of plural voting in order that the House of Commons might more accurately reflect the political views of the electorate which they believed would strengthen their position. They recognized, however, that it would be practically impossible to pass a general reform bill until some changes were made in the House of Lords. Election and Registration Bill (London) 1908 The next attempt to abolish plural voting was made in 1908. This was not a general bill as was the one of 1906, but applied only to London and dealt with election and registration. Its chief purpose was the abolition of plural voting. The bill was introduced by Mr. Dickin- son and although a private members' bill it was permit- ted to come up for a second reading. 3 As pointed out by Mr. Dickinson, London was in a different position from any other city in regard to parliamentary elections. The city was divided into twenty-eight parliamentary boroughs instead of being a single parliamentary bor- ough as was the case in other cities. Each of these twenty-eight boroughs was sub-divided into electoral 1 Proceedings of National Liberal Federation, 1907, p. 87. 9 Liberal Publications, 1907. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 183: 1233-41. 231] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 25 divisions as was true in other cities. This system in London gave rise to two anomalies. In the first place, it caused a large number of electors to lose their votes be- cause of the twelve months' residence qualification in each borough. Mr. Dickinson estimated that in his own constituency in 1907 there were 300 electors who moved to other parliamentary boroughs in London. If this were typical of other boroughs it would mean that there were from 25,000 to 30,000 electors who lost their votes because they moved from one part of the city to another. The second anomaly resulted in a multiplication of the number of plural voters. If a man had business interests and possessed qualifications in each borough he would have as many votes. It was estimated that of the 600,- ooo electors in London some 60,000 had duplicate votes elsewhere, and at least 36,000 of these had duplicate qualifications in the City of London. It was to remedy these anomalies that the bill was introduced. It pro- vided that the county of London should comprise one parliamentary borough and that the parliamentary bor- oughs which existed at the time of the passage of the act should become divisions of the parliamentary bor- ough. 1 The bill was opposed on the familiar lines that it was piecemeal legislation and would touch only one evil. The arguments for and against plural voting played an important part in the discussion. At the close of the day's sitting Mr. Dickinson moved that the bill be read a second time, but the Speaker refused to put the ques- tion and it never came to a vote. The supporters of the bill claimed that it would have removed the glaring anomalies in relation to London, and would have placed 1 Public Bills, 1908, vol. ii, p. 341. 2 6 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [232 it on an equal basis with other cities. If the bill had come to a vote it is doubtful whether it would have passed, for the Government refused to sponsor the meas- ure. It is practically certain that it would not have passed the House of Lords. London Election Bill of 1909 The following year Mr. Harcourt introduced for the Government a London Election Bill which was some- what less pretentious than that of 1908. This bill did not provide any new machinery for its operation ; it simply applied the existing law to London. An elector having more than one qualification should notify the re- vising barrister of the selection of his voting place. In case one of his qualifications was his place of abode that would constitute his election division. Nonresident freemen, who had no place of abode within the parlia- mentary borough, would be assigned an election division by the revising barrister, the assignments to be distribu- ted equally among the divisions. 1 In this respect the bill made one concession to the borough of the City of London which was the center of the banking, trading, and commercial interests. It provided that non resident .freemen and liverymen of the City of London would be entitled to register in that division and could not be as- signed to any other division as would be the case in the other boroughs of the city. 2 While the bill applied only to London the whole argu- ment centered upon the general question of plural vot- ing. The Government insisted that because of the divis- ion of London into parliamentary boroughs it was placed 1 Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Viet., c. 23), s. 14. (Parliamentary Papers London Election Bill, 1909, vol. 70, Bill 133). * Parliamentary Papers, 1909, vol. iii. Bill 155. 233] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 27 in a different position from any other city and that the proposed bill would remedy this injustice. It was re- peatedly asserted during the debate that the Government was attempting to secure by piecemeal legislation what it had failed to obtain by the general bill of 1906. On a final vote before the question was put for a third reading the bill carried by 161 to 29. Of the 29 London mem- bers who voted, 24 voted for the bill. The next day the bill was read for the first time in the House of Lords and came up for a second reading on November 8. The arguments took about the same course as in the Commons. It was generally conceded that the bill was supported and opposed for party rea- sons. 1 It was a foregone conclusion that it would be defeated by the Lords. They lived up to expectation and it was given the " three months hoist ". Thus the Liberals had been unable to realize the high hopes that they entertained after their victory in 1906. The House of Lords had blocked the efforts of the party to abolish plural voting. This served only to convince the Liberal leaders that the House of Lords was the stronghold of privilege. They decided that Liberal leg- islation could be passed only by reconstituting the House of Lords or placing limitations on its power. The next two years were so taken up with these constitutional questions that there was no discussion upon any bill dealing with plural voting. It was not until the intro- duction of the Franchise and Registration Bill of 1912 that the Government again turned its attention toward this question. 1 Liberal Magazine, 1909, vol. xvii, pp. 698-9. Tl%e Times, October 19, 1909, p. 9. CHAPTER III THE EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE THE great struggle for women's suffrage in England was to gain the parliamentary franchise; the right of municipal or borough franchise was granted in 1869 without any bitter opposition. 1 The Reform Act of 1832 definitely pre- vented women from exercising the right of the parliamen- tary franchise by the introduction of the word "male" before the word "person." The first serious parliamen- tary debate on national women's suffrage occurred when John Stuart Mill offered his amendment to the Bill of 1867 to om it tne word "man" and substitute the word " person " in the enfranchising clause. 2 Although he sup- ported this amendment by a speech which deeply impressed the House, it was defeated by a vote of 73 to 196. The women, nevertheless attempted to exercise the right to vote under the act as passed. They claimed that the Reform Bill as interpreted by Lord Brougham's Act of 1850 conferred 1 The Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 introduced the word " male " before the word " person," thereby depriving women of the right to vote, which at that time they were entitled to exercise, if otherwise qualified. Through the effort of Mr. Jacob Bright the Municipal Corporation Act of 1869 restored the municipal franchise to women. This act was re- pealed and reenacted by the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882. This together with subsequent acts granted women the right of both borough and county franchise on the same basis as men. Marriage, however, continued to constitute a total disqualification. (Rogers, On Elections, voL i, pp. 187, 179, 67-8). 2 Hansard (Parliamentary Debates) 3d series, vol. 284:996; Murdoch, Constitutional Reform, p. 250; .Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales, p. 476. 28 [234 235] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 2 g the franchise upon women. This Act declared, "That in all Acts words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, . . . unless the contrary as to gender .... is expressly provided."' In order to test their rights under this Act, a large number of women attempted to get their names placed on the register of voters. Their claims were rejected by the revising barrister. The most famous case, that of 'Chorlton v. Lings, was argued before the Court of Common Pleas in 1868. The court ruled that although the word " man " must be held to include women when the observance of laws, taxation, and duties were concerned, it included only male persons when applied to the franchise. 2 After this decision the women could hope to secure the franchise only by act of Parliament. The early movement for the franchise reached its height in 1884 when the Reform Bill was before Parliament. 3 This bill was to extend the franchise to about 2,000,000 ad- ditional men. On June 12 Mr. Woodall moved an amend- ment to include women, within the scope of the bill, where the right of voting: for the members of Parliament was con- cerned. This was vigorously opposed by Mr. Gladstone on behalf of the Government who said that, " the vessel car- ried as big a cargo as it could safely carry." The amend- ment was rejected by a majority of 136 with over a hundred of the supposed friends of women's suffrage voting against the amendment because of pressure from the Government. 4 The so-called friends of women's suffrage were in the 1 /j 6- 14 Viet., c. 21, s. 4. L. R. 4 C. P. 374- 'The first bill on women's suffrage was introduced by Mr. Jacob Bright in 1870. It carried on the second reading by vote of 124 to 91. In the committee it was opposed by Mr. Gladstone and defeated. 4 Hansard (Parliamentary Debates) 3rd series, vol. 289: 1942-64; voL 299 : 92-204 ; Murdoch, op. cit., p. 283 ; Seymour, op. cit., p. 477. 3 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [236 majority in the House of Commons, and this was in con- sequence a great setback for the cause. It was almost twenty years before the question came again prominently before the country. A few staunch supporters, however, continued the agitation, and not a year passed without the presentation of either a bill or resolution on the subject. It was during these years that a program of education was carried on by the supporters of women's suffrage in an undemonstrative way which laid the foundation for far greater advancement in later years. Women also began to take a more active part in political affairs, which developed their political sagacity and their knowledge of politics as practiced by the dominant parties. They gained invaluable political experiences in the Primrose League and in the Women's Liberal Federation. These organizations were not primarily for the advancement of women's suffrage, but in many instances they were used as partisan auxiliary organizations to the Conservative and Liberal parties. In 1897 a decisive forward step was taken in the organiza- tion of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies. The National Union was formed by the amalgamation of some sixteen women's suffrage societies and its sole purpose was to work for women's suffrage on a nonpartisan basis. It was the policy of the organization to place the question " in such a position that no Government of whatever party [would] be able to touch questions relating to representa- tion, without at the same time removing the electional dis- abilities of women." l This union became the great con- structive force of the nonmilitant suffrage workers. There had been a growing feeling for several years among the more aggressive of the women's suffrage workers that nothing practical could be gained through the con- 'Metcalfe, Woman's Effort, p. 17. 237] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 3 j tinuation of their work in connection with the two dominant political parties. A great many of them had become identified with the Independent Labor Party largely because this party admitted women to membership on equal terms with men. These recruits were mainly from the middle and labor classes. The Women's Social and Political Union, the organiza- tion which was destined to play such a conspicuous part in the fight for women's suffrage, was formed on October 10, 1903. It was revolutionary in its inception and methods. Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughter, Christabel, had been for years enthusiastic workers for the cause of women's suffrage. They had become convinced that a more pro- gressive and radical program must be adopted if women were ever to gain their political rights. The organization was effected at the home of Mrs. Pankhurst in Manchester. Almost all the women at the first meeting were working women, although it was determined as a definite policy that the Union should be independent of both class and party. The program of action called for vigorous political methods, and not simply for the use of passive propaganda. 1 The purpose and character of the organization have been clearly described by Mrs. Pankhurst herself. She states: " There was little formality about joining the Union. Any woman could become a member by paying a shilling, but at the same time she was required to sign a declaration of loyal adherence to our policy and a pledge not to work for any political party until the women's vote was won. . . . More- over, if at any time a member or a group of members, loses faith in our policy; if any one begins to suggest that any other policy ought to be substituted, or if she tries to con- fuse the issue by adding other policies, she ceases at once to 1 Pankhurst, My Own Story, p. 38. 32 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [238 be a member. . . We do not believe in the effectiveness of the ordinary suffrage organization. The Women's Social and Political Union is not hampered by a complexity of rules. We have no constitution and by-laws; nothing to be amended or tinkered with or quarrelled over at an annual meeting. In fact, we have no annual meeting, no business sessions, no election of officers. The Women's Social and Political Union is simply a suffrage army in the field. It is purely a volunteer army and no one is obliged to remain in it. Indeed we don't want anybody to remain in it who does not ardently 'believe in the policy of the army. The foundation of our policy is opposition to a Government which refuses votes to women. To support by word or deed a Government hostile to women's suffrage is simply to invite them to go on being hostile." i Slack's Women's Suffrage Bill of 1905 The first work of propaganda and organization was among the women workers of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The organization grew in strength so rapidly that at the Annual Conference of the Independent Labor Party in 1904 the Administrative Council was directed to prepare a bill for the enfranchisement of women, to be introduced into Parliament the following session. 2 To get a friend of women's suffrage to introduce the bill was a rather difficult task, but finally Mr. Bamford Slack, who held the four- teenth place in the ballot, was induced to sponsor the measure. The bill was accordingly scheduled as the second order of the day for Friday, May 12, 1905. The women's suffrage workers were undaunted in their efforts to bring pressure upon their friends to support the measure. They induced a large delegation of women to attend the debate 1 Pankhurst, My Own Story, pp. 58-59. 'Pankhurst, The Suffragette, pp. 7-10. 239] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 33 to give support and weight to their cause, for it had been eight years since there had been a women's suffrage bill introduced in the Commons. The opponents of the bill resorted to familiar parliamen- tary tactics in order to prevent full consideration of the question. The first order of the afternoon session was an unimportant measure which required carts to carry tail lights at night. The debate on this bill began at 12 o'clock and lasted until 4:30 P. M., being purposely drawn out in order to defeat the women's suffrage bill. This left only thirty minutes for the consideration of Mr. Slack's measure. The bill provided merely that women should exercise the right of franchise on the same basis as men under the exist- ing law. 1 He summarized the arguments for women's suf- frage by saying that, " their claim was based on the eternal principles of liberty, equality, equity, and justice, and also of national morality and righteousness principles to which this House could not for long consent to turn a deaf ear." : The necessity of the franchise to protect the economic in- terests of women was strongly emphasized by the supporters of the bill. The chief argument advanced against women's suffrage was that the state w r as ultimately based upon force and that the duty of citizenship implied the ability to protect the state in the capacity of soldiers and policemen. The bill was opposed on the ground also that it would be intol- erable for the state to be dominated by women, as would be the case because they outnumbered the men. At the close of the debate the Speaker declined to put the question and the sitting adjourned without a vote. The bill came up for discussion again late in the afternoon on June 23, and was debated for a short time, but the Speaker 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1905, vol. v, Bill 3. * Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 146: 221. 34 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [240 again refused to put the question and no vote was taken. By these parliamentary manoeuvers the bill was prevented from ever coming to a vote. The women who had witnessed the debate from behind the Grille in the ladies' gallery became exasperated at the dilatory tactics which had been used and the insulting way in which thev had been treated by their opponents. On the suggestion of Mrs. Pankhurst they hurried outside to hold a meeting of protest against their treatment by the Govern- ment. Mrs. Wolstenholm-Elmy, the oldest worker in the cause of women's suffrage, began to address the women who crowded around her. Almost immediately the police in- terfered, broke up the meeting, and ordered them to disperse. Finally they were granted the privilege of holding a meeting at the Broad Sanctuary near the gates of Westminster Abbey. Here a resolution was adopted condemning the procedure of the House of Commons which made it pos- sible for a small minority to prevent a vote from being taken upon the Enfranchisement Bill and calling upon the Government to enact the bill into law. This was the first aggressive act of the Women's Social and Political Union, 1 but it was only the beginning of a desperate struggle for political rights by a great body of citizens. Until this time the question of women's suffrage played no important part in politics and was given no space in the public press. The Beginning of the Militant Movement During the summer of 1905 two incidents occurred which made a profound impression upon the leaders of the Union. The Government was in a very weak position owing to dis- sension in the Cabinet over the tariff reforms advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. There was also the criticism of the policy of the Government in conducting the South African 'Pankhurst, My Own Story, p. 43. 2 4 I ] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 35 War. A general business depression prevailed, especially in the cotton trade, which resulted in distress in many in- dustrial centers. From these districts came the demand that the Government take some steps to cope with unemployment and to relieve the distress of the starving workingmen. The bill introduced by Mr. Walter Long, on behalf of the Government, to deal with this matter had been so strongly opposed bv members of the Conservative party that it was finally announced that no further time could be given to it. In the midst of this discussion Mr. Balfour announced that a crisis had arisen in the controversy between the Scottish Free Church and the United Free Church of Scotland. The Scottish Churches Bill was introduced to settle this dispute, and hurried through its various stages in spite of the limited time. The leaders who had been attempting to get the unem- ployment bill passed proceeded at once to create a crisis that would compel the Government to rush their bill through. At a demonstration in Manchester the marchers came in conflict with >the police and held their protest meeting in spite of police orders. The seriousness of this was called to the attention of the Government and the Unemployed Work- man's Bill, which the Government had set aside for lack of time, was taken up and hurried through the remaining stages. The leaders of the Women's Social and Political "Union took their cue from these events and determined to set about to create a crisis which would compel the Government to grant suffrage to women. 1 After about forty years of peaceful agitation the more aggressive women came to the conclusion that it was useless to expect anything but verbal sympathy from the leaders of the great political parties. 1 Pankhurst, Suffragette, p. 18. 36 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [242 Neither party would sponsor their cause as had been done in other reform movements. The press gave them no real support. They, therefore, ceased to ask the vote as a favor and began to demand it as a right. The new spirit manifested itself in the form of interruption of meetings and in the holding of protest meetings. This was a mild form of militancy. The campaign and election of 1906 offered an excellent opportunity for the women to press their claims upon the leaders of the parties. It is a custom in English political meetings for persons in the audience to interrupt the speaker and ask questions. The leaders of the Women's Social and Political Union began to avail themselves of this privilege. The Liberal campaign was launched by Sir Edward Grey at Manchester on October 13. Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kennev attended this meeting to secure the pledge of the Liberal party for women's suffrage. They asked the speaker if the party would grant women's suffrage. Being ignored they repeatedly pressed their question. The audience finally became exasperated by these interrup- tions and the women were seized by the police and ejected from the hall amid the shouts and cheers of the onlookers. They decided immediately to hold an indignation meeting. They had been speaking only a few minutes when they were arrested by the police and taken to the Town Hall. Both were charged with obstruction and with assaulting the police. The next morning they were brought before the police court and both were found guilty. Miss Pankhurst was ordered to pay a fine of ten shillings or to go to prison for seven days, and Miss Kenney five shilling or three days' imprisonment. They both refused to pay their fines and were hurried off to prison. This episode marks the beginn- ing of the real militant movement and the long list of im- prisonments for the cause of women's suffrage. 1 1 Pankhurst, Suffragette, pp. 24-37. 243] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 37 During the autumn and winter of 1906-07 the members of the Women's Social and Political Union conducted a carefully planned campaign of questioning the Liberal speak- ers at all important meetings. The display of the white banner with the inscription " Votes for Women " was ex- pected at every important meeting. The Times in com- menting upon the meeting of Mr. Asquith at Queen's Hall on December 19, 1905, said that the meeting was " disturbed only by the now inevitable lady interrupter." In spite of their efforts thev were unable to secure the pledges of the leaders of the party to support their cause. The National Union worked in a more quiet and nonspectacular way during the election and attempted to secure the personal pledge of the candidates for support. In all, about five hundred candidates expressed their belief in some form of women's suffrage. 1 The election, as has been stated, resulted in an overwhelm- ing victory for the Liberal forces. But as subsequent events testified this did not apparently improve the chances for women's suffrage because the Government refused to make it a part of its program. It had not yet become a political question of sufficient importance to be so considered. As soon as the election was over the Women's Social and Political Union began to lay extensive plans to place their demands before the new Government. The first step taken was an attempt to arouse the women of London, the initial appeal being made to the working class. The idea wa3 conceived of a big demonstration in the form of a parade on the day of the opening of Parliament, February 19, 1906. A procession was accordingly organized, and they marched to Caxton Hall, Westminster, for a public meeting. In the midst of the meeting it was reported that the King's 1 Metcalfe, op. cit., p. 24. 38 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [244 speech contained no reference to the question of women's suffrage. At once a resolution was proposed condemn- ing the omission and demanding that the Government im- mediately introduce a measure giving parliamentary votes to women on the same terms as to men. The resolution was carried bv acclamation. The meeting adjourned and proceeded en masse to the Strangers' entrance of the House to plead with their friends to bestir themselves in behalf of the women's cause. The Government, having taken due precaution, had ordered the doors closed; they were per- mitted only to send separate deputations of twenty to inter- view members. 1 But they received no assurance that Par- liament intended to grant the vote to women. This first procession to Parliament was apparently barren of results; the women were disappointed and bewildered. They did not seem to realize at that time the tremendous prejudice and lethargy which prevailed against their move- ment on the part of the public. They did not appreciate that the Government seldom acts in such matters except in response to great popular demand. Their tasks were first to convert the great mass of people and then to bring pres- sure on the Government for action. During this session the question of women's suffrage was debated briefly on two different occasions, the first time when a bill was introduced 2 by Sir Charles Dilke and later when a resolution was presented 3 by Mr. Keir Hardie. In each case only a short time was allotted for the debate and the Speaker refused to put the question to a vote. In the meantime repeated attempts had been made by 1 The Times, February 20, 1906, p. 10. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 152: 1448-50; Parliamentary Papers, 1006, vol. ii. Bill 20. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 155 : 1570-2. 245] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 39 deputations to see Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but he had refused to receive them. A memorial signed by nearly two hundred members of Parliament had been presented to him asking that he receive a deputation of members of Parliament on the subject of women's suffrage. Finally he agreed to receive a deputation on May 19. Plans were accordingly made for a huge demonstration including all parties, societies, and organizations which supported women's suffrage. The deoutation included three hundred and fifty persons representing about twenty-five organizations. 1 The deputation was introduced by Sir Charles McLaren. 2 In response to the speeches made by representatives of such a large proportion of the women's interest of the country, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said that women had alreadv demonstrated their ability along many political lines in connection with school boards, work on royal com- missions, and departmental commissions. He admitted that in his opinion, they had made before the country "a conclusive and irrefutable argument." In speaking for the Government he said that he had only one thing to preach to them and that was the virtue of patience. He went on to explain that the Cabinet was divided upon the question, as the Cabinet of previous Governments had been, and that it would be impossible for him under the circumstances to 1 The Times, May 21, 1906, p. 7. * Among the other speakers was Miss Emily Davies, who had sub- mitted to John Stuart Mill the first petition for women's suffrage ever presented to Parliament. Mrs. Eva McLaren, Miss Margaret Ashton. and Mrs. Holland Rainy represented respectively some 80,000, 99,000 and 14,000 women Liberals in England and Scotland. Mrs. Glasson represented 425 branches consisting of 22,000 members of the Women's Cooperative Guild. Mrs. Watson represented the Scottish Qiristian Union of the British Women's Temperance Association with a member- ship of 52,000 and Mrs. Mary Bateson presented a petition for the franchise signed by 1,530 women graduates. 4 o FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [246 make any pledge for the Government to carry out their demands. He suggested, however, that if they used moderation the growing interest of the country in their de- mands insured its success at no distant future. Such a pro- nouncement was a great disappointment to the members of the deputation; they wanted support from the Government. In the afternoon the deputation held a meeting in Exeter Hall. A resolution was adopted which urged women to in- crease their efforts to convince the Government of the justice of their cause and it requested the Prime Minister to grant a day during the session for the discussion of a motion on the subject. A mass meeting was also held in the afternoon in Trafalgar Square which was attended by about 7,000 people, and vigorous protests were voiced against the Gov- ernment because of its policy. The Prime Minister had given as his reason for the re- fusal to make a women's suffrage bill a Government measure that certain members of the Cabinet were opposed to it. The supporters, therefore, began to direct their energies to- ward the conversion of these recalcitrant members. Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George were particularly singled out. They repeatedly refused to receive deputations. The women were not to be thwarted in their efforts and began to use more vigorous methods which often resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the demonstrators. With the use of these militant tactics a cleavage began to develop among the suffrage workers. Those who adop- ted the militant methods were known as Suffragettes, while those who continued to use constitutional methods were known as Suffragists. The Suffragists, maintaining that it was a very small number of women who were bringing dis- credit upon the whole suffrage movement, depreciated and apologized for these militant acts. The militants, however, accomplished at least one thing. They brought their cause 247] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 4 j before the public, and hardly a paper appeared that did not contain an account of a suffrage meeting or an open letter on some phase of the suffrage question. That the militants appreciated the seriousness of the task which they had un- dertaken was shown by a letter of Mrs. Pethick Lawrence in which she declared that a life and death struggle between the women and the Government had begun. She em- phasized the fact that there was no turning back until the Government granted concessions. The old constitutional methods had failed to bring results and they had determined to try new methods. 1 During the summer of 1906 there were an increasing number of interruptions of public meetings ; there were also parades and demonstrations, all of which tended to bring the question more prominently before the public. At the reopening of Parliament another attempt was made to obtain a promise from the Prime Minister that the Govern- ment would introduce a women's suffrage bill during the session. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman refused to re- ceive the deputation. A meeting of protest followed in the Central Hall. The women were soon ejected and a second attempt was made in the Old Palace Yard. This was also broken up and resulted in the arrest of ten of the leaders who were later sentenced to two months' imprisonment. 2 The imprisonment of the suffrage leaders and their treat- ment as regular criminals, rather than as political prisoners, caused a great deal of discussion in the House of Commons, since friends of the movement addressed questions to the Government concerning their treatment and care. This was a subject of constant agitation and a source of frequent embarrassment to the Government. 1 Evening News, June 25, 1906. *The Times, October 24, 1906, p. n. 42 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [248 On February 8, 1907, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, composed of thirty societies, was re- organized to carry on a more vigorous educational and prop- agandist campaign along nonmilitant lines. The next day they held a big demonstration in Hyde Park and between 3, OCX) and 4,000 women marched in the parade in spite of rain. The suffrage supporters had by this time definitely decided that they would on every possible occasion demon- strate to the Government the popular support of their cause and convince it of their determined purpose to obtain the franchise. Dickinson's Women's Enfranchisement bill of ipo? In the ballot for place for introducing private members' bills, Mr. Dickinson secured the first place and agreed to introduce a women's suffrage measure. 1 It came up for a second reading on March 8. A great deal of care had been taken by those interested in women's suffrage that the bill should be of a conservative nature so that it would en- counter as little opposition as possible. It introduced, there- fore, no new qualifications for the franchise ; it simply pro- vided that in all acts relating to the qualifications and regis- tration of voters where words which import the masculine gender were used, the same should be held to include women. In all purposes connected with the right of registration or voting it further stated that women could not be disqualified on account of marriage. 2 The number of women who would be enfranchised by this bill and the classes they would represent gave rise to considerable discussion. It wasi estimated that it would include between one and two million women. The real supporters of women's suffrage had in- vestigated this question thoroughly and believed that it 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1907, vol. iv. Bill 8. * Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 170: 1102-9. 249] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 43 would include a larger percentage of women of the working class than of any other class. 1 Mr. Dickinson maintained that the chief purpose of the bill was to adopt the principle that neither sex nor marriage should be a disqualification from the right to vote. He urged that it was especially necessary that the women have the right of franchise in order to protect and advance their economic interests which were a great financial and political asset to the nation. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, speaking early in the debate, said that the question was one on which there was no pretense of unanimity or consensus of opinion in the Cabinet and under the circumstances it was for the House to take its own course as decided by the individual views of its members ; the Government would not interfere. Speaking personally he indicated his intention of voting for the bill although he objected to this particular measure on the ground that it was too limited in its scope. The rejection of the bill was moved by Mr. Whitehead. He based his opposition chiefly on the ground that as framed it would enfranchise the middle and upper classes and was, therefore, undemocratic. This argument was advanced by most of the members who spoke against the bill. It was evident, however, that they were not concerned so much with the scope of the bill as they were opposed to women's suffrage under any condition ; they used this demo- cratic argument to conceal their real attitude toward the question. Before the close of the debate it became ap- parent that those in opposition would prevent a vote if pos- 1 Mr. Dickinson pointed out that in 1904 in his constituency there were 1,014 women electors. Of these 3 per cent had belonged to the wealthy class, 37 per cent to the middle class andi 60 per cent to the working class. The census taken by the Independent Labor Party in 1904 had shown that 82 per cent of the women on the Municipal Register belonged to the working class and the investigations made in connection with drafting this bill substantiated these general conclusions. 44 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [250 sible. Mr. Dickinson arose three times before five o'clock and attempted to put the question but the Speaker refused. Amid cries of " Divide," the debate was adjourned without taking a vote ; the bill was talked to death. A few days later a deputation of Liberals consisting of Sir Charles McLaren, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Howard, Mr. Lennant, and Mr. Snowden called upon the Prime Minister, and attempted to get the Government to grant facilities for the bill. This the Prime Minister said would be an un- precedented procedure for a private members' bill at this stage. Since the Government refused to grant conces- sions the supporters decided to concentrate their attention and efforts on a resolution dealing with women's suffrage to be introduced by Sir Charles McLaren. Mr. Dickinson consented to withdraw his bill in order to clear the way for discussion of this resolution. Sir Charles McLaren accordingly gave notice that on March 27, he would introduce a resolution for the en- franchisement of women. Subsequently Mr. Maurice Levy gave notice of his intention of introducing on March 26, a bill to confer the franchise on adult men and women. There was a rule of the House that a resolution could not be introduced when there was a bill before the House covering the same subject. 1 The Speaker requested that the bill be withdrawn to permit the discussion of the resolu- tion. Mr. Levy refused to acquiesce in this. The Speaker held that while he believed that such a procedure would be an abuse of the privilege yet it could not be prohibited. The resolution was thus effectually " blocked " by a dummy bill. To the supporters of women's suffrage this was only another of the tricks of the opponents to use the machinery of the House to prevent discussion of the question. 2 Two other 1 This rule was changed in 1914. 2 In the meantime on March 20, another deputation had attempted to 25 1 ] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 45 bills to grant women's suffrage were introduced during 1907 by Sir Charles Dilke, but neither of them ever came up for discussion. 1 In order to impress upon the Government the fact that women's suffrage was a live political issue the supporters adopted a consistent policy of fighting the by-elections. The Women's Social and Political Union opposed all Liberal candidates regardless of their attitude towards women's suf- frage while the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies adopted the nonpartisan policy of supporting those candidates who would sponsor their cause. In such cases it is always difficult to determine definitely the causes of the election results; but it is a matter of fact that in most of the constituencies where fights were made there was a dis- tinct falling off in the Liberal vote. The loss at Cocker- mouth was 1,446; at Huddersfield 540; in Northwest Derby- shire i, 02 1 ; South Aberdeen 3,001 ; Hexham 231 ; Stepney 503; at Rutland 202; Jarrow 4,573; Colne Valley 2,204; Northwest Staffordshire 271 ; Bury St. Edmunds 306, mak- ing a total loss to the Government at by-elections of 13,300 votes. 2 While only a part of this loss may be attributed to the opposition of the suffrage forces, the campaigns did reach the House of Commons. They encountered the opposition of the police, a struggle resulted, arrests were made, and the next day sixty- seven persons were sentenced to prison. 'One concession, however, was made to women in 1907 which had to do with local qualifications. An act was passed which provided that women could not be disqualified by reason of sex or marriage from being elected or being a councillor or alderman of the council of any county or borough, but it provided that a woman could not be elected as chairman of the county council or mayor of a borough. (Parlia- mentary Papers, 1907, vol. iv, Bill 297). This repealed the part of the Act of 1899 which provided that women were not eligible for these offices. They had had the right to vote for such offices but not to hold them. * Pankhurst, Suffragette, p. 166. 46 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [252 serve to bring the question before the electorate more pro- minently and gave the women valuable electioneering ex- perience. 1 Stanger's Women's Enfranchisement Bill of 1908 The suffrage forces were fortunate again in 1908 in se- curing a good place for a private members' bill. Mr. Stanger introduced his bill for the enfranchisement of women on February 3, and it came up for a second reading on February 28. 2 The bill was the same in provision and scope as that introduced by Mr. Dickinson in the previous session. This course was followed in order to encounter as little opposition as possible from the adult suffragists and the more conservative reformers. Mr. Gladstone, Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, made a very significant speech in view of the severe criticism of his department because of the way it handled the suffragettes in their raids upon the House. In speaking of the policy of the Government in regard to the bill he said that there was no unanimity of opinion in the Cabinet on the subject, and the Government would leave the decision to the views of the individual members. Speaking for himself, while not approving all phases of the bill, he pledged his vote in its support. The question as to the influence which the militant tactics were having upon the women's suffrage movement began to play an important part in the debate. In the main these methods were depreciated quite as much by the supporters of 1 During the autumn and winter of 1907-8 repeated deputations visited the prominent members of the Cabinet presenting their cause before them. February saw new outbreaks of the militant spirit when a deputation attempted to reach the House of Commons. As a result, on the morning of February 12, forty-seven persons were sentenced to prison and two days later their number was increased by a dozen more. * Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, vol. 185: 212. 253] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 47 the bill as by the opponents, with the exception that the sup- porters saw in the movement the reaction against a deep- seated injustice which the Government must remedy. The rejection of the bill was moved by Mr. Cathcart Wason, who maintained that the only qualification for repre- sentation in the House of Commons was manhood suffrage and not property. He laid great emphasis upon the point that the chief protection of the state rested upon force and those who called themselves citizens must be able to defend the state against all outward attacks. To put a climax to his argument he added that the right to vote would also carry with it the right to sit in the House of Commons which the members would never tolerate because it would mean a divided House. Air. Maurice Levy, Mr. Clement Edwards and Mr. Mallet opposed the bill on the grounds that it was an undemocratic measure, would grant the right of franchise only to the wealthy women, and would thereby increase plural voting. The opponents again attempted to prevent the bill from coming to a vote but the Speaker put the question and the bill passed a second reading by a vote of 271 to 92, the largest majority that any women's suffrage measure had ever received. An analysis of the vote shows that each party gave a clear majority to the measure, the Socialists making their vote unanimous. 1 This, however, does not adequately represent the sentiment of the Unionist party be- 1 The following was the party vote : For Against Liberal Labor 196 52 L. R. C. Socialist 24 Unionists 33 28 Nationalists 20 14 273 94 This includes the Tellers. Liberal Magazine, 1908, vol. xvi, p. 89. 48 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [254 cause many opponents of the bill remained away from the session while most of those in favor of women's suffrage were in attendance. The bill was referred to the committee of the whole and, as in all such cases, this was tantamount to withdrawal. 1 On the whole this was the most serious debate on the sub- ject that had taken place up to that time. It was still more or less of an academic question, for no one actually thought that the bill would become a law during the ses- sion; yet the seriousness of the situation began to be evident even to the casual observer. The Times, an im- placable opponent of the cause, assumed a more moderate editorial tone and at least conceded some justice to the cause when it remarked that, " In general the level of debate showed a gravity and sense of responsibility suitable for the discussion of what is a most important problem." ~ The Manchester Guardian indicated the real situation when it stated that the vote in the House did not represent the feeling in the country as a whole either among the men or the women. 3 While the members of the House had been converted, at least theoretically to the cause, the country at large was still apathetic. If the politicians had thought otherwise, each party would have been only too anxious to sponsor the cause in order to gain the gratitude of the newly enfranchised electors, and thus perpetuate their power. They were waiting to follow the country rather than to lead in the reform. 1 So little parliamentary time is reserved for private members' bills that they have practically no chance of passing unless after the second reading they are referred to a standing committee which avoids the committee stage in the House. Lowell, The Government of England (new edition), vol. i, pp. 311-14. 1 Tlte Times, February 29, 1908, p. 9. 3 Manchester Guardian, February 29, 1908, p. 28. 255] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 49 Deputation to Mr. Asquith Following the resignation of Sir Henry Campbell-Ban- nerman on April 5, 1908, due to ill health, Mr. Asquith be- came Prime Minister. The Liberal members who were in favor of women's suffrage arranged for a deputation to wait upon the new Prime Minister to ask for facilities for the Stanger Bill, or at least to get a promise of action from the Government. The deputation consisted of sixty persons, all members of the Liberal party. In introducing the deputa- tion Mr. Stanger assured Mr. Asquith that they were all loyal members of the Liberal party and had no desire what- ever to embarrass the position of the Government. 1 He repudiated any connection or sympathy with the policy or the activities of the suffragettes. In reply Mr. Asquith stated that it would be impossible for the Government to give a week or even two or three days to a bill which was not of its own initiative. He indicated, however, that an imperative obligation rested upon the Government to introduce during the existing Parliament a really effective scheme of electoral reform which would alter the artificialities and delays in obtaining qualifications for the franchise and which would abolish the system of plural voting. When the Government Reform Bill was introduced he said that it would be within the power of the supporters of women's suffrage "to seek to introduce by amendments, or by extension, the object they desired." He pledged that the Government would not resist such amendments for the simple reason that probably about two- thirds of his colleagues in the Ministry were in favor of women's suffrage. The House would be free to make any amendments to the Reform Bill concerning women's suf- frage which it desired. His only reservations were that 1 The Times, May 21, 1908, p. 10. 5 o FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [256 any such amendments must be along democratic lines and have the overwhelming support of the women of the country as well as of the men. He also gave assurance that the bill would be drafted on sufficiently broad lines to admit of a women's suffrage amendment. The announcement that the Government intended to in- troduce a Reform Bill which would not include a women's suffrage clause tended only to infuriate the militants. The fact that opportunity would be given for the insertion of such an amendment did not satisfy their demands. Miss Christabel Pankhurst, representing the Women's Social and Political Union, made immediate reply. She stated that this policy only confirmed the Union in its determination to fight the Government. 'She insisted that nothing less than a definite pledge of action during the present session would satisfy the Union. Otherwise they would continue their hostility to the Government by fighting its candidates in by- elections and by the use of militant policies. The Women's Freedom League, which in 1907 had become a separate organization from the Women's Social and Political Union, although believing in militant methods, announced that the members were resolved to renew and would continue their militant tactics until they had secured a definite pledge from the Government to incorporate women's suffrage as part of the Government measure. 1 The Women's Liberal Federation, which was at the time in annual session, assumed a very different attitude towards Mr. Asquith's statement. Lady Carlisle who presided said : "That was a glorious day of rejoicing. The Prime Minister had opened a way for them by which they could enter into the inheritance from which they had been too long debarred. The Government was vindicated and stood in a 1 The Times, May 22, 1908, p. 10. 257] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE $i proud position in which they desired to see it, free from re- proach in regard to the whole democratic creed." x They ac- cepted the pledge of the Government in full faith and con- fidence and moved a vote of thanks to the Prime Minister for his pledge to permit a women's suffrage amendment to be incorporated in the proposed Reform Bill. The members of the League were urged to support the Liberal candidates at the by-elections and secure from them pledges in favor of women's suffrage. The statement of Mr. Asquith that a bill would have td be supported by a majority of the women caused a renewed effort on the part of all who favored women's suffrage. It also aroused more intense opposition among those who opposed the movement. It became a contest for show of strength. There was accordingly organized a National Women's Anti-Suffrage Association which became a very active organization working in opposition to granting the vote to women in parliamentary elections. They distributed great quantities of literature, held demonstrations, and se- cured petitions against women's suffrage. The suffrage societies likewise carried on a vigorous campaign of meet- ings, processions, and demonstrations attempting to con- vince the Government of the demand for immediate action. These extended throughout the country; it was estimated that the Women's 'Social and Political Union alone was re- sponsible for 10,000 meetings during 1908.* They reached their climax in the mammoth demonstration in Hyde Park on June 21. The Times estimated that 30,000 people took part in the parade and that it was witnessed by 250,000 people. 3 It declared that no such demonstration had been 1 The Times, May 22, 1908, p. 10. 1 Metcalf e, op. tit., p. 71. ' The Times, June 22, 1908, pp. 9 and II. 52 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [258 witnessed in London since the demonstration of the agricul- tural laborers in 1884. The editor admitted that after such a remarkable demonstration, judged both by organization and mere magnitude, it would be idle to deny that a great many women were desirous of the franchise. It was time, he thought, for those women who disbelieved in the suit- ability of their sex for the franchise and for the men of the same opinion to organize and demonstrate their strength correspondingly. A more serious form of disturbance took place on the reopening of Parliament at the autumn session, October 12, 1908. Because the Government refused to grant facilities, a hand bill was circulated calling upon the public to assist the suffragettes in "rushing" the House of Commons. This appealed to all lawless elements in the community and led to a rather serious breach of the peace. It was brought out in the trial of the leaders of the movement that more than 6,000 special policemen had been placed on duty because of this raid. About the same time those who were sent to Holloway prison refused to obey the prison rules and mutinied against discipline. This was only a forerun- ner of the trouble which was to follow. The policy which the Government adopted of treating the suffragettes as criminals rather than as political prisoners kept the question constantly before the House and caused a great deal of agitation and criticism. With the development of events in 1908 it became apparent that if the Government did not grant concessions, and there were no indications that it would, a much more serious form of militancy would even- tually be restored to. It would be only the logic of events. Early in 1909 there was a renewed effort on the part of the militants to send deputations to Mr. Asquith and also to reach the House of Commons. As on former occasions they were foiled by the police and arrests followed. When 259] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 53 their prominent members were released from prison, they were welcomed with great demonstrations, which only tended to advertise their movement. Howard's Adult Franchise Bill of 1909 In the balloting for private members' bills, Mr. Geoffrey Howard secured a good place and agreed to introduce a franchise measure. He decided in consultation with the Women's Suffrage Committee of Liberal Members to intro- duce a bill along the lines mapped out by Mr. Asquith. This would offer an opportunity to get an interpretation of the position of the Government in relation to a democratic meas- ure. The bill as introduced by Mr. Howard was an adult franchise bill and provided that every man and woman of full age, whether married or single, should be qualified to vote at parliamentary or local elections, provided they had re- sided for three months within the constituency. 1 It was estimated that the bill would enfranchise about 3,000,000 men and between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 women. 2 Mr. Howard justified the broad scope of the bill on the ground that if it were limited it would be opposed by some group which favored another particular reform and that piecemeal measures were thus sure to arouse antagonism; it was, therefore, better to face the situation as a whole. 3 He as- sured the House that he was under no illusion as to the chances for success of this bill or any other private members' bill upon electoral reform and insisted that the reform must be ultimately fostered by one of the great political parties. The women's suffrage societies of the country without a single exception were opposed to this bill because of its 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1909, vol. ii, Bill 21. 2 In speech made by 'Sir C. B. McLaren, Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. ii : 1369. 3 Ibid., 1360-5. 54 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [260 broad scope. They believed that this would put insuperable obstacles in the way of women's suffrage and postpone in- definitely the removal of the sex disqualification. While they used different methods they all worked upon the prin- ciple that success could be attained only by the removal of the sex disqualification, entirely disconnected from the ques- tion of adult suffrage. They did not want their cause con- fused and hindered by another issue. Neither did they want to wait until the country was ripe for adult suffrage to secure their demands. 1 The bill was supported by the Women's Liberal Federation 2 and the Women's Coopera- tive Guild although neither one of these was strictly a suf- frage organization. The bill was opposed on the familiar grounds that it would change the basis of representation, that the question had not been before the electorate, and that there was no demand for the reform. 8 In closing the debate Mr. Asquith reiterated his pledge to introduce a Reform Bill, along democratic lines, but insisted that such a bill must be backed by the government of the day; it should not be presented as a private members' bill. 4 The bill was ordered to a second reading by a majority of 35, the vote being 157 ayes to 122 noes. It was referred to the committee of the whole and never came up again. This debate was not of so high an order as was the one of the previous year, neither did it attract the popular attention nor cause the press comment. It was apparent that because of the wide scope of the bill the discussion could have little practical effect. 1 Letter by Mrs. Fawcett, The Times, March 15, 1909, p. 4, speaking for the National Union of Women's 'Suffrage Societies, and speech made by Miss Pankhurst, The Times, March 17, p. 8. 1 Report of Resolution passed by Federation, The Times, March 18, 1909, p. 8. Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. ii: 1372; 1399-1407. 'Ibid., 1428-30. 2 6l ] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 55 The attempt to present petitions to the prime Minister finally led to a legal struggle over the right of petition. Under this right the militants claimed that Mr. Asquith could not refuse to receive them and that they could not be lawfully imprisoned for attempting to exercise their legal rights. The question was appealed to the Lord Chief Justice who sustained the imprisonment sentences of the lower court on the principle that while the women had a right to present a petition to the Prime Minister, they could not compel the Prime Minister to receive a deputation, which was the chief object of their visit. 1 The suffrage workers were defeated in every new attempt to advance their cause. The machinery of the House of Commons was used to block their bills. They were unable to secure the support of either dominant political party. They were in effect deprived of the right of petition. Being thus foiled in their efforts, militancy began to take on a more serious aspect. Things had reached a point where the militants must either yield and acknowledge defeat at the hands of the Government or adopt more drastic methods in an attempt to force the Government to alter its policy. The first sign of a more vigorous policy was the throwing of stones during the raids upon Parliament. The damage done was chiefly to windows in the neighborhood of the demonstration. The larger number of prisoners also began to cause trouble. While previously there had been minor infractions of discipline in the prisons there was now inau- gurated the hunger strike. The first to attempt this was Miss Wallace Dunlap who was released from Holloway on July 9, in a state of complete exhaustion after ninety-two hours of incarceration. As this policy was consistently carried out by the prisoners, the Government, not to be foiled, adopted the policy of feeding them forcibly. This 1 The Times, December 2, 1909, p. 3. 56 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [262 treatment was administered first 1 to Mrs. Mary Leigh in the Birmingham Prison and reported in the press on Sep- tember 24, 1909. The news of this policy of the Govern- ment brought forth a storm of criticism both in and out of Parliament from friend and opponent of women's suffrage. It served as nothing else had to cause increased discussion of the question of women's suffrage on the part of the public. General Election of January, 1910 The great controversy over the budget in 1909 prevented the suffrage workers from making the suffrage question a dominant issue in the political affairs of the day, and they completely failed to make it an issue in the election of January, 1910, as they had hoped to do. The program of social legislation which the Government had been carrying out resulted in a very heavy drain upon the treasury. The increased naval program, occasioned by the rivalry with Germany, meant great additional burdens upon the Govern- ment. As a result of these two lines of activities the Government in 1909 faced a deficit of about 16,500,000. While this program had been proposed by the Liberals it was one which the Opposition dared not oppose. A sharp line of cleavage between the two parties developed concern- ing the method by which this deficit should be met. Mr. Lloyd George in his budget plan proposed that the greater part should be raised by unearned increment taxes on land, increase in liquor license duties, graduated income tax, and increased inheritance taxes. Most of this burden would fall upon the propertied classes, especially upon the landholders. While the new land taxes themselves were not so burden- some, it was the introduction of the principle to which the Opposition objected. The Unionists proposed that the de- ficit be met by a tariff reform, the revenue to be raised largely from duties laid upon imported foodstuffs. 1 Pankhurst, The Suffragette, p. 431. 263] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 57 The Finance Bill based upon Mr. Lloyd George's pro- posals was introduced on May 26, 1909. This became the important political question before the country. Party spirit ran high. The bill passed the House of Commons on November 4, and was rejected by the Lords on November 30. On the principle that such an important legislative policy should not be inaugurated without first getting the mandate of the electorate, it was decided to dissolve Parliament and make an appeal to the country. The chief issues in the election were, the right of the House of Lords to interfere with money bills, the approval or rejection of the budget, the abolition of the veto power of the House of Lords, and the introduction of a scheme for Home Rule. With these deeply rooted partisan questions before the country the suffrage supporters were unable to make their demands in any way an election issue. They thus were manoeuvred into a position of great disadvantage. Dur- ing the election, however, they were not idle ; they attempted to secure pledges of support from all candidates possible. Mr. Asquith in answer to a question by the Women's Liberal Federation gave his pledge that the promise for opportunity to amend the Government Reform Bill would survive the expiring Parliament, that it would hold good in its succes- sor, and that the cause of women's suffrage, so far as the Government was concerned, would be no worse off in the new than in the old Parliament. 1 In all two hundred and twenty-five candidates in their election addresses advocated some form of women's suf- frage. In no less than forty constituencies the Women's Social and Political Union conducted campaigns against the Government candidates on the suffrage issue. 2 In eighteen of these the candidates failed to be reflected, and practically 1 The Times, December n, 1909, p. 8. 1 Pankhurst, The Suffragette, p. 488. 5 g FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [264 every one of the candidates had his majority reduced. This, however, was typical of the election as a whole. The Liberals were successful, but they were returned with a greatly decreased majority. The Liberals secured 274 seats, the Unionists 273, the Nationalists 82, and the Laborites 41. The position of the Government thus de- pended upon the support of the Nationalists and the Labor- ites, the majority of the Government even with this sup- port being reduced to 124. From the standpoint of the women's suffrage supporters this was a real victory. Previous to the election they had been fighting against a party with such a big parliamentary majority that its position was impregnable. Now they were in a much stronger strategic position because the Govern- ment had to depend upon the support of the Nationalists and the Laborites. It was among these members that the suf- frage advocates had their most loyal supporters. Thus in spite of the disadvantages of the campaign and election they found themselves in a much better parliamentary position than ever before. The policy of the militants had placed the Government in a rather embarrassing position. If it yielded to their de- mands it would do so under pressure and as a result of force. In order to remove this embarrassment and to give the new Government opportunity to carry out its pledge the Women's Social and Political Union announced on February 14, 1910, the day before the opening of Parlia- ment, that they would suspend all militant tactics toward the Government. But in doing this they emphasized the point that this was only a suspension and not an abandon- ment of hostilities. 1 The King's speech made no mention of the question of 1 The Times, February 15, 1910, p. 8. 265] EARLY MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE 59 women's suffrage, neither was a supporter of the cause successful in the ballot for a private members' bill. This made some new policy necessary. The development of parliamentary events also made it rather more difficult for the suffrage supporters to get a hearing. The Finance Bill was reintroduced and passed without great opposition. But the whole question of the status of the House of Lords had been raised by the controversy and the Government intro- duced a series of resolutions which proposed definitely to limit the power of the House of Lords. This completely occupied the attention of the Commons and the controversy became the center of political interest throughout the country. For a while, therefore, the suffrage forces were compelled to work more quietly, but their work was effec- tive. From the foregoing it is apparent that the first decade of the twentieth century witnessed tremendous strides in the cause of women's suffrage. At the opening of the period it was of little more than academic interest ; at the end of the decade it was one of .the leading political questions of the day. The militant movement, whether it created friends or enemies, had at least forced the question on the attention of the public. Scarcely a paper appeared which did not deal with some phase of the question. The novel methods of propaganda which were introduced and the enthusiasm of the workers constantly augmented the number of suf- frage supporters. Women's suffrage had become a ques- tion of which the politicians were compelled to take cogniz- ance. CHAPTER IV WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BECOMES A PRACTICAL ISSUE As has been pointed out, the question of women's suffrage- was different from most political questions in that it cut athwart party lines. Neither of the dominant parties was willing to make it a party issue. While it had become an important public question it suffered the lack of party sup- port. In order to meet this situation the supporters of the cause finally agreed that the best method of procedure would be to appoint a committee, representing all parties, which would assume responsibility for the direction of the move- ment in Parliament. A Conciliation Committee was ac- cordingly appointed consisting of fifty-four members, twenty-five of whom were Liberals, seventeen Unionists, six Irish Nationalists, and six members of the Labor party. 1 The Earl of Lytton was made chairman of the Committee and Mr. H. N. Brailsford acted as secretary. The Com- mitte-e attempted at once to frame a bill which would be supported by all parties and all classes of suffrage societies. They found that a most difficult task. 2 The Conservative members naturally wanted only a moderate bill brought for- ward; many of the Labor party wanted to go to the full length of adult suffrage; the Liberals insisted that the bill should be so constructed as not to increase the number of plural voters or to give undue influence to the propertied 1 The Common Cause, June 16, 1910, p. 148. 2 Brailsford, The Conciliation Bill, passim. 60 [266 267] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 6l classes. The Committee was so tactful, however, that it secured the support of all parties and all suffrage societies to the bill, in spite of the fact that at first many of the societies demurred from supporting a bill of such limited scope. In the meantime the suffrage societies held a great many demonstrations. The members of the Conciliation Com- mittee, and party leaders brought pressure upon the Govern- ment to grant facilities for the bill. 1 Finally on June 23, Mr. Asquith announced that the Government was prepared before the close of the session to give time for a full debate and a division on the second reading of the bill, but he said the Government itself would not sponsor any contentious measure and could not give further facilities for the bill. 2 While this insured ample discussion, the promoters were not satisfied with such a program since it meant defeat of the measure unless they were granted further facilities. The concession of the Government was, nevertheless, an evidence of a change in attitude towards the movement since under pressure it was compelled for the first time to grant facilities for discussion. Conciliation Bill of 1910 The Conciliation Bill which was drafted by this unofficial committee representing all sections in the House was intro- duced 3 by Mr. Shackleton on June 14, and came up for second reading on July n. The bill as introduced was modeled after the municipal franchise and extended the 1 It is almost impossible for an opposed private members' bill to become law unless the Government gives the bill some of its own time or as- sumes control of the bill after it passes the second reading. If some assistance is not granted the bill is almost certainly doomed because there are so many means of obstruction possible. Lowell, op. cit., pp. 314-15. * Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xviii : 488. 8 Ibid., vol. xvii : 1202-5. 62 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [268 parliamentary franchise to every woman who possessed a household qualification and women occupiers of business premises of 10 or more yearly value. It also provided that a woman could not be disqualified for registration by reason of marriage if the husband and wife did not qualify in respect of the same property. 1 Under this bill the house- holders would constitute about 90 per cent of those included within its provisions. The householder could vote if he or she inhabited a house, even a single room, however small, or low the value, provided it was under his or her full con- trol. The bill also included a large number who occupied premises valued at 10 per inhabitant. This would include a large number of small shopkeepers, typists, and other women who had offices of their own, and it would also enable women living together to rank as joint occupiers pro- vided the house was worth 10 for each occupier. As under the municipal franchise, there was no qualification for owners, lodgers, or university graduates. Mr. Shackleton estimated that the bill would enfranchise about 1,000,000 women. 2 The limited scope of the bill gave rise to a great deal of discussion as to the finality of the measure. Mr. Shackle- ton was a supporter of adult suffrage yet he introduced this bill in order to get the principle of women's suffrage estab- lished in the hope that if it were once adopted it would later be extended to other classes. Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, on the other hand, entirely repudiated this "thin edge of the wedge" doctrine. 8 While he accepted the principle of women's suffrage in limited form, he did not accept the principle of adult suffrage. In the course of the debate he said, " I am unalterably against and I can imagine no cir- 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1910, vol. iv, Bill 180. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xix : 42. *Ibid., 91-6. 269] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 63 cumstances in which I would be for adult suffrage. If the honorable member anticipates or if he attempts going even one step further in that direction he must count on my opposition." Mr. Walter McLaren speaking for the various women's suffrage organizations supporting the bill said that while there was no finality in politics yet the women were prepared to accept this bill as a reasonable settlement of the claims they were making. 1 If this bill had become law it would, no doubt, for a time have satisfied the supporters of women's suffrage but it never would have been considered a final settlement of the question. The limited character of the bill alienated some support from the adult suffragists and was the chief point of attack of those who opposed the measure. The Speaker ruled early in the debate that the title of the bill would not permit amendments to be made so as to extend its scope in order to grant the franchise to women whose husbands possessed the household qualifications, regardless of value. Mr. Asquith asserted that it was a travesty on democratic institu- tions to present a measure such as this that did not satisfy the most rudimentary requirements of democratic ideas. 2 Mr. Lloyd George, who was supposed to be a supporter of women's suffrage, came out openly against the bill because of its undemocratic character. Mr. Snowden defended it as a democratic measure by saying that four-fifths of the women who would be enfranchised by the bill were women who earn their own living. He justified the policy of the Conciliation 'Committee in presenting this bill on the ground that it was the only means by which they could hope to unite all the differences of opinion and the various factions which were in favor of extending the franchise to women. 8 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xix:2ii-2O. 1 Ibid., 244-54. l lbid., 316-24. 64 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [270 A total of thirty-nine speeches were delivered during the two days' debate, both supporters and opponents being drawn from all parties except that no member of the Labor party spoke against the bill. There was scarcely an argument which had ever been presented on the subject that was not mentioned sometime during the debate. In spite of the opposition of Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Churchill, the bill passed on second reading by a vote of 299 to 190, a majority of 109.* An analysis of the vote shows that the Liberals gave a majority of 101 in favor of the bill with four to the good on the pairing, while the Conservatives rolled up in opposition a majority of twenty- six against the proposition with five against it on pairing. Not even the Laborites were unanimous on the subject, two votes being cast against the bill. The Nationalists were almost equally divided, giving a slight majority of four to the negative. It appears that there were not enough negative votes to pair all of the absent affirmative votes. The Ministers were almost equally divided upon the question, fifteen voting for and sixteen against the bill. The Opposi- tion front bench voted six for and eleven against women's suffrage. 1 The parties voted as follows on the bill : For Against Absent Liberals 162 ~\ 6i~\ Unpaired [-174 [ 69 32 Paired 12 ) 8 ) Unionists 88 ^ 1 14 ~\ [99 [ 131 41 Paired n ) 17 ) Labor 32 ") f- 34 2 4 Paired 2) Nationalists 19 15 47 326 217 124* * This includes the Tellers. Liberal Magazine, August, 1910, pp. 384-85. 271] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 65 The fact that the large majority of 179 votes on the Stanger Bill in 1908 was reduced to a majority of 109 votes on this bill can not be taken as evidence of a falling off in the women's suffage support. The Liberals had suffered a greatly reduced majority in this Parliament as compared with that of 1908. The Conciliation Bill received a larger majority than the Government had been able to command for any of its bills. During the election campaign the Women's Social and Political Union had worked against the Liberals so that if the Union had any influence it would have increased the Conservative members who in the main were less favorable to women's suffrage than the Liberals. There had been a determined effort on the part of the Conciliation Committee and the supporters of the bill to have it sent to a Grand Committee rather than a Committee of the Whole House. They realized that reference to the Committee of the Whole would be equivalent to defeat. Both during the debate and in the discussion outside of Parliament it had been urged that a vote to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole would be equivalent to a vote against it. Immediately after the vote on the second read- ing had been taken, Mr. Lehmann moved that the bill be sent to the Committee of the Whole and the motion car- ried by a vote of 320 to 175, a majority of 145. A majority of both Liberals and Unionists favored this procedure. 1 There were fifty-five Unionists, fifty-nine Liberals and four Laborites who voted for the bill on the second reading and 1 For Against Unionists 176 29 Liberals 124 101 Labor 5 26 Nationalist 15 19 320 175 The Times, July 14, 1910, p. 9. 66 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [272 subsequently voted to bury it in the Committee of the Whole. While the supporters of the measure attempted to press the point that a vote to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole was a vote against the bill yet there was a point of procedure involved which influenced a great many votes, especially among the Conservatives. They objected on constitutional grounds to sending a franchise measure to a Grand Committee, believing that such an important bill should always be sent to the Committee of the Whole. It was perfectly evident, however, that there were a great many who voted for the bill and then took this opportunity to shelve it safely for the remainder of the session. But this was not accomplished without a great deal of opposi- tion, for this debate had been taken much more seriously than any of the previous suffrage debates. All the forces in favor of women's suffrage now began to wage a vigorous campaign for further facilities for the bill. Their demands occupied the center of interest for all the suffrage workers until the dissolution of Parliament on November 28, 1910. The Conciliation Committee led in this propaganda. At every opportunity the supporters of the bill injected the question into the debates on the floor of the House of Commons and demanded facilities for their measure. On July 28, Mr. Lloyd George, in answer to a question by Mr. Snowden, replied for the Government that further facilities could not be granted during the session. He justified this decision by saying that the Government had promised to give an opportunity for ef- fectively dealing with the whole question, but since this bill was so framed as not to admit of amendment, the Gov- ernment would not grant further facilities for it. 1 On the debate of the motion for adjournment, which is 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xix: 2338-9. 273] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 67 always an opportunity for attacking the Government, the supporters of the bill again arraigned the policy of the Government in the most vigorous manner. 1 In reply to this attack Mr. Asquith maintained that the Government had adhered strictly to its pledge. He said that when he promised two days for the discussion of the second reading it was with the expressed understanding that no further facilities would be given during the session so that the sup- porters of the measure accepted the pledge of the Govern- ment definitely knowing the conditions and limitations. He also justified the position of the Government by the fact that the members of the House had deliberately voted to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole rather than a Grand Committee with the definite knowledge that this pro- cedure would defeat it. In the meantime the suffrage organizations were becoming increasingly active all over the country, trying to compel the Government to grant facilities. By November resolu- tions and petitions urging the Government to grant facilities had been passed by thirty-eight city and town councils, in- cluding those of Manchester, Cork, Southport, Glasgow, Dundee, Liverpool, and Nottingham. Since July 12, when the bill passed the second reading, no less than 4,220 suf- frage meetings had been held. Some of these were very large demonstrations, especially those in Hyde Park, Albert Hall, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol, Leicester, and Not- tingham. At a meeting of the Women's Social and Political Union on November 10, Mrs. Pankhurst announced that if the Government did not grant facilities, the truce would be annulled and war would again be declared on the Govern- ment. Parliament reassembled on November 15, and three days 1 Parliamentary Debates, sth series, vol. xix: 2587-92. 68 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [274 later Mr. Asquith announced that the Conference between the two Houses had failed on an agreement over the dis- position of the House of Lords and that Parliament would be dissolved on November 28, and a general election would follow. In making this announcement he outlined the program for the remainder of the session but made no mention of facilities for the Conciliation Bill. The friends of the measure were so indignant over this procedure that Viscount Castlereagh moved an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion, demanding that further facilities be given to the Conciliation Bill. In doing this he intended to make a protest against the manner in which the Govern- ment had dealt with the women's suffrage question. Mr. Asquith attempted to prevent this amendment from com- ing to a division because it virtually amounted to a vote! of censure on the Government. The amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 199, which was a distinct victory for the Government. Here again the power of the Cabinet and the Government whips made themselves felt and the sup- porters of the Conciliation Bill proved more loyal to the Government than to the cause of women's suffrage. Finally on November 22, in answer to a question by Mr. Hardie in regard to the policy of the Government 'in! relation to women's suffrage, Mr. Asquith said, " The Gov- ernment will, if they are still in power, give facilities in the next Parliament for effectively proceeding with a bill which is so framed as to admit of free amendment." 1 But he refused a pledge to make it a Government Bill in case it passed a second reading. A big meeting was in session in Caxton Hall awaiting Mr. Asquith's answer. His pro- mise did not satisfy the demands of the women. As soon as it was received a strong deputation started to carry a 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xx : 273. 275] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 69 resolution to the Prime Minister. A struggle with the police followed in which the women displayed greater de- termination than ever before. Windows were broken and Mr. Asquith himself was attacked but escaped in a motor car. Some 156 arrests were made as a rtesult of the demonstration. The Women's Social and Political Union issued the statement, " As the Prime Minister will not give us the assurance that women shall be enfranchised next year we revert to a state of war." 1 The Women's Freedom League took similar action. Thus after ten months of truce militant tactics were again resorted to in an attempt to compel the Government to grant concessions. General Election of December, 19 10 In the general election which followed in December the Women's Social and Political Union again adopted the policy of implacable opposition to the Government can- didates. They carried on anti-Government campaigns in fifty constituences, in ten of which the Liberal candidates failed to secure reelection. The other women's suffrage societies including the Women's Freedom League worked in behalf of the candidates who pledged their support to the cause of women's suffrage. The election yielded results almost identical with those of the previous January, al- though there were a number of changes in seats. The Liberals actually lost two seats but the Nationalists and Labor parties gained four seats, which made a net gain of two seats to the Liberal Government, so that they were as dependent as ever upon the support of these parties. The supporters of women's suffrage claimed a much larger number of friends for their cause than in any previous Parliament. Mr. Bradford's classification of the members 1 The Times, November 23, 1910, p. 8. 70 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [276 showed that there were 246 supporters of women's suffrage in all parties, 120 of the less reliable variety, 42 adult suf- fragists who were reluctant to vote for a hadfway measure, and 65 who were either neutral or undecided while there were 193 avowed opponents of women's suffrage. 1 Kemp Conciliation Bill of 1911 The Conciliation Committee decided that members of the committee and sympathizers should ballot for the oppor- tunity of moving a resolution and of introducing a bill in the new Parliament. Following out this plan Sir George Kemp introduced a Women's Enfranchisement Bill which came up for a second reading on May 5.* The bill provided that every woman who was a householder should be granted the parliamentary franchise in the division hi which she resided. 3 It provided that a woman should not be dis- qualified because of her marriage but specified that husband and wife could not vote in the same parliamentary division. A woman would, therefore, have to possess a household qualification in another division from that in which her husband resided in order to be able to vote. While it abolished the 10 qualification which was included in the bill of 1910, yet it virtually limited the right to vote to the; wealthy women who could qualify in another division. On the other hand it made it much easier for widows and spinsters to qualify because there was no 10 minimum. This requirement was omitted in order to remove the objection urged against the bill of 1910 that it would create fagot votes.* The title was also extended so as to make 1 The Common Cause, February 9, 1911, p. 713. 2 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxv : 738-46. * Parliamentary Papers, 1911, vol. v, Bill 6. 4 Fagot votes were created by dividing the interests in houses and land with a view to the multiplication of votes for election purposes. Anson, op. cit., vol. i, p. 127. 277] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 71 amendments possible in order to meet the objection raised by Mr. Lloyd George the previous year. Sir George Kemp estimated that the bill would, if passed, enfranchise about 1,000,000 women. One of the chief objections urged against this bill was that it prohibited husband and wife from voting in the same parliamentary division. 1 This would disqualify prac- tically every married woman unless she were wealthy enough to qualify in a constituency in which her husband did not reside. It would enfranchise among the poorer classes only those who were widows or those living apart from their husbands and spinsters who possessed the house- hold qualification. Mr. Henderson voiced the protests of the adult suffragists against this limited scope of the bill. 2 While the adult suffragists agreed to vote for the bill on second reading they served notice that in the committee stage they would demand an extension of its provisions. The bill passed on second reading by vote of 255 to 88, a majority of 167 as compared with 109 in 1910. While the majority was 58 more than that of the previous year, yet that did not represent a clear gain in strength for the movement; the total vote in 1910 was 489 as compared with 343 on this occasion. Each party gave a good majority for the bill, the Labor party making it unanimous. 3 The vote 1 Speech by Sir Maurice Levy, Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxv : 750-5. 2 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxv : 787-90. An analysis of the vote shows the following party alignment: For Against Liberal 145 36 Unionist 53 43 Labor 26 Nationalist 31 9 255 88 Votes for Women, vol. v, p. 431. 72 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [278 did not accurately represent the sentiment in the Unionist party, because a large number of their members who op- posed the bill were not present. They realized that the bill would pass and, therefore, did not take the trouble to vote. The debate was not of the high order that characterized that of the previous year. 1 In fact not ai single member of the front benches on either side of the House took any part in the discussion. Very few of them attended; at times both benches were entirely vacant and the Govern- ment also was unrepresented. Most of the leaders spoke on the former occasion and now they gave the private members more time for debate. This possibly accounts for the quality of the debate as characterized by The Times as being "a debate conspicuous for flatness and platitudin- ous repetition of threadbare arguments." 2 Negotiation for Government Facilities Following the second reading of the bill there was ai long period of negotiation with the Government for facili- ties. 3 The promises of the Government before the election were fairly explicit, yet the supporters of women's suffrage had been deceived so often that they continued to press for more reassuring statements. On May 29, in answer to questions by Viscount Wolmer in regard to facilities for the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, Mr. Lloyd George, speaking for the Government, replied that the promise given by the Prime Minister on November 22, 1910, was that if the bill was read a second time facilities would be given 1 There were two other franchise bills introduced during the session, both were accorded a first reading without a vote but neither came up again. *The Times, May 6, 1911, p. II. 'This is given in detail because of the important bearing which it had upon the suffrage movement. 279] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 73 during the existing Parliament. But the Government was careful not to bind itself to the first session, as it could not foresee the time necessary for its own measures. 1 He said that because of the pressure of the Government pro- posals, it could not grant further facilities for the present session. He continued : " The Government will be prepared next session, when the bill has been again read a second time, to give a week, which they understand to be the time suggested as reasonable by the promoters for its further stages." In answer to further questions Mr. Lloyd George replied, "We are bound in the course of the present Parliament to find whatever time is necessary to enable the House of Commons to express an opinion even to the final stage upon the proposals." He also intimated that this would be given in ample time to force it through the House of Lords under the Parliament Act of 1911 be- fore the end of Parliament. While this was by far the most encouraging and satisfactory answer that had thus far been given, it was rather ambiguous, and two days later at a meeting of the Conciliation Committee a resolution was sent to the Government which requested that the facilities be made effective. The Coanimittee demanded that the Government agree to use the closure if necessary and that they have the assistance of the Ministers in moving the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule in order to pass the bill. 2 The next day Sir Edward Grey speaking at a dinner given by the National Liberal Club attempted to clear up these points for the Government. In introducing the sub- ject he said, " It was a very serious matter that the House of Commons should year after year be getting itself into an invidious and discreditable position in regard to the subject 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxvi: 703-5. *The Times, June i, 1911, p. 10. 74 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [280 by passing the second reading again and again and not showing whether it was determined to proceed with it." He explained that it was the intention of the Government that the promoters of the bill should have a fair oppor- tunity to defend themselves by the means which the rules of the House placed at the disposal of a majority for de- fending themselves against obstruction and making reason- able progress. The Conciliation Committee through its chairman, Lord Lytton, still pressed Mr. Asquith for a definite answer to certain specific questions in regard to the use of the closure. In response Mr. Asquith declared that the term " week " would be interpreted with reasonable " elasticity " and " that the Government will interpose no obstacle to a proper use of the closure, and that if . . . . the bill gets through the Committee in the time proposed, the extra day required for report and third reading would not be refused." 2 He said that while the Government was divided in opinion, in re- gard to the merits of women's suffrage, it was united in its determination' to carry out its pre-election promises as to facilities.. These promises were so nejassurinjg that the Women's Social and Political Union announced a truce of their militant tactics pending developments in order to give the Government opportunity to make good its pledges. Because of confusing public statements which Mr. Lloyd George had made Mr. Leif Jones on August 16, again asked him specific questions in regard to facilities for the bill supported by the Conciliation Committee. Mr. George replied that, " the Government clearly can not undertake to give facilities for more than one bill on the same subject, but any bill which satisfied those tests and secured a second reading would be treated by them as falling within their 1 The Times, June 2, 1911, p. 6. */&(/, June 17, 1911, p. 12. 2 g I ] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 75 engagement." l This statement immediately aroused a good deal of apprehension and suspicion among the sup- porters of the Conciliation Bill. They feared that some other bill, which was not at all satisfactory to them, might secure a better place upon the ballot and the Government might grant this bill facilities and by this method, fulfill the letter of its pledge for facilities and thus effectively evade any responsibility to the Conciliation Committee. With this possibility in mind Lord Lytton again wrote to Mr. Asqudth asking for definite assurance that whatever other bill might be introduced next session and whatever facili- ties were granted to it, the Government would not be re- lieved of its promises to the bill promoted by the Con- ciliation Committee. In answer to this Mr. Asquith re- lied that the promises .made by the Government would be strictly adhered to, both in letter and spirit. This answer seemed satisfactorily to settle the policy and determination of the Government, and even the Women's Social and Political Union suspended all opposition to the Government candidates, and supported those most favorable to their cause. During the summer of 1911 all suffrage organizations carried on a rather vigorous program of education and agitation. Things were thus apparently mov- ing towards a victory for women's suffrage. The suffrage forces were united in their support of the Conciliation Com- mittee. A suffrage bill had passed two successive sessions of the House of Commons with large majorities and the Parliament Act had. removed the effective veto of the House of Lords. The suspension of militant tactics also produced a calmer atmosphere in which to consider the question. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxvii : 1912-14. *The Times, August 24, 1911, p. 6. 76 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [282 Announcement of the Reform Bill On November 7 Mr. Asquith received a deputation which presented a memorial on behalf of the Parliamentary Council which worked in connection with the People's Suf- frage League. This meeting it seems had been arranged rather on the quiet and nothing had been heard about it among the suffragists. The deputation was presented by Mr. Henderson who called attention to the fact that out of a population of 45,000,000 there were only 7,504,655 en- franchised. 1 Mr. Asquith in reply said that the subject of adult suffrage made it necessary for him to reiterate the promise and pledge which the Government had made to the Conciliation Committee for the next session and by these pledges it must abide. But asserting that a much broader problem was presented by the question of adult suffrage he said, " We believe a man's right to vote depends upon his being a citizen, and prima facie a man who is a citizen of full age and competent understanding ought toi be entitled to a vote, but he ought not to be entitled to more than one vote." He continued by saying that all the numerous qualifications as lodgers, owners, occupiers, and rate payers ought to be entirely swept aside; that the franchise should be based upon the simple qualification of residence; and that the electors should be placed on the register by a public registration officer. He indicated that the Reform Bill which the Government proposed to intro- duce the next session would be based upon these principles. While the bill would not include a women's suffrage clause he pledged that it would be introduced in such a form that it would be open to the House of Commons to make an amendment incorporating women's suffrage if it so desired. This had the effect of a bomb shell explosion among the suffrage forces. They had worked for half a century to 1 The Times, November 8, 1911, p. 8. 283] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 77 gain the franchise for women. They had at last received pledges from the Government for facilities for the bill supported by the Conciliation Committee, and now the Government in the face of this, announced its hitention of introducing an adult manhood suffrage bill upon its own initiative, a bill for which there was little popular demand or agitation. The cause of women's suffrage was to be left to the mercies of an amendment to this Government Bill. No one appreciated the vital blow that this announcement made more than those who had been working for concilia- tion and unity among suffrage supporters. This was cer- tain to drive rifts into their ranks which would be fatal to success. The Women's Social and Political Union lost no time in serving notice on the Government that if a Manhood Suffrage Bill were introduced at the next session they would revert immediately to militant tactics. 1 They rejected with contempt the proposal that women should depend for their enfranchisement upon a mere amendment to the Reform Bill. In order that the suffrage societies might learn more clearly the intention of the Government, they asked for an interview with Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George. This was arranged for November 17, at which time a deputation was received representing nine societies; including the Women's Social and Political Union, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, the Women's Federal League, the Conservative and Unionist Women's Suffrage Franchise Association, and the Actresses' Franchise League. In reply to the speeches made by the representatives of the deputation Mr. Asquith said there had been no recession from the promises for the Conciliation Bill and the Govern- ment was still ready to grant facilities for any bill which met the qualification of being capable of amendment. 2 He 1 The Times, November 8, 191 1, p. 8. *Ibid., November 18, 1911, p. 10. 78 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [284 argued that the fact that the Government was going to introduce a Reform Bill in no way altered these pledges if the Conciliation Committee cared to take advantage of them. In answer to a question, by Mrs. Fawcett, he said the Government proposed to push the Reform Bill through all of its stages in 1912, and that it would be drafted in- such a way as to be capable of a women's suffrage amend- ment. In case such an amendment were adopted he said the Government would consider it an integral part of the bill and be prepared to carry it through its final stages. He contended that it would be impossible for him as head of a Government, himself not believing in women's suffrage and the Cabinet divided on the question, to make, it at Government measure, yet it would not be inconsistent, in case the House made an amendment to the Government Bill, for the Government then to assume responsibility for carrying out the will of the House. The discord the Government plan was destined to cause among the suffrage ranks was shown by the different atti- tudes which the suffrage societies took toward the policy of the Government. The Women's Social and Political Union immediately issued a statement in which they de- clared that the position taken by the Government was one of direct hostility to the claims of women and that the intro- duction of such a measure made any nonpartisan solution of the question impossible. On the other hand, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies and the Women's Freedom! League were satisfied that their chances for success had not been diminished by the policy of the Government. A statement was issued which declared that nothing but an unwise handling of the situation could re- sult in failure. A few days later, on November 24, Mr. Lloyd George made a speech at Bath which apparently reflected his real 285] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 79 attitude in regard to the effect which the policy of the Government would have upon the Conciliation Bill. 1 The meeting was the object of a determined attack of the militants who by this juncture had come to> look upon Mr. Lloyd George as the chief betrayer of the women's cause. In discussing the position, of women's suffrage and the attitude of the militants he said the Conciliation Bill had been " torpedoed " and the way was now clear for a broad and democratic amendment to the Reform Bill which would insure not a limited class of women chosen by Tory can- vassers but one which would include the workingman's wife. He closed with an appeal for women's suffrage and an appeal to Liberals to follow his leadership. Whatever was the thought by Mr. Asquith. as to the effect of the Re- form Bill upon 1 the success of the Conciliation Bill, it was apparent that Mr. Lloyd George thought it had been " torpedoed." It is difficult to believe that Mr. Asquith also was not shrewd enough to recognize the effect which it would have, although on 1 November 27, in Parliament in answer to questions by Mr. Smith he reaffirmed his former statement that the pledge to the Conciliation Committee held good. The opening of 1912 saw the rifts within the ranks of the suffrage supporters developing rapidly; it was apparent that the policy of the Government had disrupted the united support which had been back of the two> previous Con- ciliation Bills. Nonpartisan support was no longer possible. The National Administrative Council of the Independent Labor party passed a resolution opposing the policy of the Government and demanded that in any franchise bill men and women should be granted, the suffrage on the same basis. 2 They demanded adult suffrage and since there was 1 The Times, November 25, 1911, p. n. * Independent Labor Party Report, 1912, p. 20. 80 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [ 2 86 at least some possibility of getting an amendment to the Reform Bill, they were not enthusiastic in their support of the Conciliation Bill. The Unionist Suffrage supporters were in the main favorable only to a limited extension of the Franchise and the Unionist members of the Conciliation Committee agreed to resist any amendment to the Reform Bill which would extend the franchise to women on too broad a basis. The Liberal members, on the contrary, pledged themselves to 1 do their utmost to enfranchise women on a broad democratic basis either by means of a private members' bill such as the Conciliation Bill or by an amend- ment to the Reform Bill. All the suffrage societies had supported the former Conciliation Bill. But now, because of the Government's intention to introduce a Reform Bill without the inclusion of women, the militant group renewed their anti-Government policy and even refused to support the Conciliation Bill. The constitutional suffrage societies continued their support. Big mass meetings and demon- strations were held by both the supporters and opponents of women's suffrage in anticipation of the impending events. After the King's speech, which made no reference to the question of women's suffrage, although the Reform Bill was mentioned, the militants served notice that militant methods in a most vigorous form would be resorted to. They made good their threats, for on March I, they took the police unaware and attacked shop windows in the West End of London. They showed no respect of persons ; they broke almost every shop window on both sides of the streets which they attacked, including the West Strand Post Office, tobacconists' shops, banks, tailors', and jewelers' shops. 1 Between 4,000 and 5,000 damage was done before they could be stopped by the police. They made no at- 1 The Times, March 2, 1912, p. 8. 287] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 8l tempt to escape and on this and subsequent days arrests were made. This was only the beginning of a long series of such attacks which constantly exasperated the public and annoyed the police. With the inauguration of this policy there was a definite break between the militant and the constitutional societies; they ceased to cooperate. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies re- pudiated these methods as severely as did the anti-suffra- gists. Agg-Gardner' s Conciliation BUI of 1912 On February 16, 1912, in the ballot for private members' bills Mr. Agg-Gardner secured third place and immediately served notice that he would introduce the Conciliation Bill. The Bill was identical with the one backed by the Concilia- tion Committee in 1911. In moving a second reading on March 28, Mr. Agg-Gardner referred to the fate of the bill in previous sessions but said the prospects were much more hopeful in this session because of the promise of the Government for facilities. He admitted, however, that within the past few weeks the prospects of its passage had been greatly diminished by the deplorable conduct of the militant group, who though hostile to the bill itself desired the enfranchisement of women. 1 He appealed to the former supporters of the bill not to permit their sympathies to be alienated by these events. Viscount Helmsby opposed the bill chiefly because of the militant tactics which had been used in the attempt to force the Government to take action. 2 Mr. Eugene Wason announced that while he had always voted for women's suffrage, he would cast his vote against it for similar reasons. 3 Sir Edward Grey following this speech said that 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxxvi : 615-19. 1 bid., 637-46. 8 Ibid., 669-71. g 2 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [ 2 88 he was equally determined to continue to cast his vote for the bill in spite of the militant tactics. 1 Mr. Asquith in opposing the bill did not attempt to hide behind any excuses but opposed it because of the principle which was to elimin- ate the differences in sex as far as political life was con- cerned. He reiterated his former statement that the bill was not, according to his belief, demanded or desired by a majority of either the men or the women of the country. 2 Taken as a whole, the debate while characterized by serious- ness on both sides did not reach the high level of that of 1910. There was no lobbying, no eager propaganda work by the extreme suffragettes as in the previous year. The lobby was empty and at times there was a very small atten- dance of members. The apprehensions of the supporters of the bill were well founded, for the motion failed by a vote of 208 ayes to 222 noes. The majority of 167 of the previous year had been converted into an adverse vote of 14. An analysis of the vote and a study of the circumstances surrounding the situation make it clear that the vote did not represent in any accurate way a change in attitude of the members to- wards women's suffrage. 3 The greatest change in party vote one which of itself would have defeated the bill was! that of the Nationalists. It seems that their vote was not 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxxvi: 671-77. */wa., 653-56. *The parties voted as follows: Against For Liberals 73 117 Unionists 1 14 63 Nationalists 35 Independent Nationalists 3 Labor 25 222 208 The Times, March 30, 1912, p. 9. 289] WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE A PRACTICAL ISSUE 83 determined at all by the suffrage question but by the Home Rule situation. They placed the interests of Home Rule above that of women's suffrage and sacrificed one for the interest of the other. The Nationalists under the leader- ship of Mr. Redmond were anxious to save as much tim for the discussion of Home Rule as possible, and they saw in the defeat of the women's suffrage bill a good opportunity to save a week's time for their own cause. There was also the desire to relieve the Government of the embarrassment of the women's suffrage question because there were fears that if the matter were pressed, open friction might develop in the Cabinet which would be derogatory to Home Rule. The Nationalists therefore, voted 35 against the bill, (10 of these voted for it in 1911) and 10 abstained from voting. Among these latter were the Nationalist members of the Conciliation Committee. In 1911 the Nationalist vote had been 31 to 9 for the bill. Their action in 1912 caused no little criticism from the Liberals. The coal strike which occurred at this time was another contributory circumstance leading to the defeat of the bill. This strike demianded the attention! of 13 Labor members in their constituencies. This prevented them from casting their votes for the bill along with the other 25 Labor votes. The window-smashing campaign o>f the militants also had an influence upon the vote. It was discussed in almost every speech. Those who continued to support the bill ap- pealed to the former supporters not to be prejudiced against the bill by these tactics of the minority. From an examina- tion of the vote it appears that 28 members who voted for the bill in 1911 voted against it in 1912; 33 members who voted for it, in 1911 were absent on this vote; but only 3 who voted against it in 1911 were absent on this occasion. Only one member who voted against it in 1911 voted for the bill in 1912. At best, therefore, the militants had gained 84 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [290 only one vote, and it is certain that of the 28 who reversed their votes and the 33 who absented themselves a good many were influenced by the militant policy possibly a sufficient number in themselves to have defeated the bill. This gave especially the lukewarm supporters of the cause a good excuse to change their votes. Because of these circumstances the supporters of women's suffrage might well claim, as they did, that the defeat of the bill could not be taken as a sign of increasing hostility to the enfranchisement of women. The militants announced that they were not surprised at the results as they had known for weeks that the Nationalists were going to vote against the bill. They reiterated their demand that the Government assume responsibility for a women's suffrage bill as the only possible means of securing its enactment into law; otherwise the amendment to the Reform Bill would suffer the same fate. The policy which the Government followed introduced so many new elements into the controversy that it had in- deed successfully "torpedoed" the Conciliation Bill. For a time there was a strong possibility that this bill might become a law. The injection of the Government Reform Bill into the controversy made this nonpartisan solution of the question impossible. A new plan of attack had to be built up as a result of these reversals. But the staunch supporters of the cause were not discouraged. They began immediately to mobilize their forces to secure an amend- ment to the Reform Bill which would command the sup- port of all classes of suffrage workers. CHAPTER V FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 No electoral reform legislation had been enacted in England since the Franchise Act o>f 1884 and the Redis- tribution Act of 1885. In 1912, therefore, it had been twenty-seven years since any change had been made in the parliamentary election laws or in the distribution of seats among electoral districts. During all this time no general bill dealing with the subject had been backed by any Government. One or two so-called piecemeal measures had been introduced to remedy certain anomalies in the system. Such, for example, were the Election and Regis- tration Bill of 1908* and the London Election Bill of i9O9. a For many years franchise and electoral reforms had been among the cardinal demands of the Liberals. They had demanded especially the abolition of plural voting, the simplification of the franchise qualifications, the shortening of the residence period, and the establishment of govern- ment machinery for registration. When the question of the abolition of plural voting was presented, the Unionists always appeared as the champions of redistribution. From the Labor party had come the insistent demand for adult suffrage. The demand for women's suffrage, the only re- form which aroused any popular enthusiasm, was backed by representatives from all parties, but neither of the lead- ing parties had been able to unite upon it. 1 Supra, p. 24. 2 Supra, p. 26. 86 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [292 All the forces which had been working for this or that electoral or franchise reform, centered their attention in 1912 upon the proposed Government Reform Bill. The Government had been unable to secure the passage of the Plural Voting Bill because of the opposition of the House of Lords, but in 1911 the veto of the Lords had been so modified that it no longer offered insuperable obstacles. In order to meet the Liberal demands for electoral reforms the Government, as announced by Mr. Asquith in November, 1911, agreed to introduce a General Electoral Reform 1 Bill in 1912. While this bill did not include a women's suffrage clause it was to be so drafted that the House would be free to amend the bill in this respect if it so desired. It was the promise of this bill, as has been seen, which had played such an important part in the defeat of the third Concilia- tion Bill. The bill was introduced for a first reading by Mr. J. A. Pease. President of the Board of Education, on June 17, I9I2. 1 Its revolutionary character was shown by the fact that it proposed totally to repeal thirty statutes and partially to repeal forty-seven others. It was thus planned to sweep away in large part the old complicated system and start anew upon a simplified basis. The bill as introduced pro- posed four important 1 changes inl the electoral system. 11 First, it made residence or occupation without regard to value the basic qualification for the franchise. Any adult male who possessed such a qualification in any constituency could be registered as an elector. Another clause made the effects of this provision perfectly clear by abolishing the university constituency and removing the disabilities of peers so that they might be registered as parliamentary 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xxxix : 1325-46. 3 Parliamentary Papers. 1012. vol. i, no. 243. 2 93 ] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 87 electors. It left untouched, however, the legal incapacities of paupers, aliens, and felons. Second, plural voting was to be effectually abolished by the provision that an elector could not be registered in more than one constituency or in more than one division of a borough or county in which he might possess the necessary qualifications. Third, the length of residence required for the qualifying period was reduced to six months continuous residence or occupation in a constituency. In case an elector moved from one con- stituency into another he would be entitled to continue to be registered in his old district for a period, not to exceed six months, after he had ceased to reside therein. This would prevent him! from losing his vote in his old con- stituency until he had qualified in another constituency in case an election intervened. Fourth, a system of continu- ous registration was introduced. The overseers were re- quired to furnish a complete list of all persons possessing) the qualifications within their parish to the registration officers. This register was to be published at least once a year and a supplementary list was to be issued each month which would include all changes made during this period. All cases arising out of objections to or changes in the regis- tration were to be tried in the county court after seven days' notice was served. This feature abolished the work of the revising barristers. Inequality of representation was left untouched by the bill. 'Mr. Pease estimated that the bill would result in a net increase of between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 electors in the country after making deductions due to the abolition of some 525,000 plural voters and 49,614 university voters. The chief classes enfranchised by the bill would be male domestic servants living in their master's house and sons living with their fathers or in homes of relatives, and peers. The shorter residence period would chiefly prevent 88 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [294 electors from being disfranchised because of moving' from one constituency to another. The bill was introduced for a second reading by Mr. Harcourt on July 8. 1 It was unfortunate that the Govern- ment intrusted the bill to such an avowed foe of women's suffrage. This immediately aroused suspicion that the Government would use all possible means to defeat the women's suffrage amendment although it had announced that it would remain neutral in the matter. The chief points of attack of practically all of the speakers during the first day's debate were that the bill omitted a redistribution proposal, that it abolished plural voting, and especially that the Government was not united upon the most important aspect of the whole problem, the question of women's suf- frage. Although the bill was silent upon this subject it was apparent from the very first debate that the question of women's suffrage would be one of the chief considerations in the discussion. The introduction of previous reform bills, the Govern- ment Plural Voting Bill, and even the private members' women's suffrage bills had all attracted much popular attention and commanded a good attendance of the House. Not so with the first day's debate upon this Government Reform Bill. Very little interest was shown; at one time the attendance in the House was as low as twelve. The Government chided the Opposition for demanding six days in which to discuss the measure when their members evidenced so little interest in the question. Chief interest awaited the committee stage when the women's suffrage amendments were to be considered. The position of Mr. Asquith in relation to the women's suffrage amendment was the cause of the greatest amount of criticism. It was mentioned in some phase in almost 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xl : 1632. 295] PRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF i 9 i 2 89 every speech. As pointed out by Mr. Balfour the Govern- ment had brought forward a franchise bill which it pn> posed to push through the House with all the pressure that could be brought by the use of its party machinery. In the committee stage the Government would then abandon the leadership upon the most important part of the whole measure and permit amendments to be made, which the Prime Minister maintained would prove disastrous to the country. If they were adopted by the House, however, Mr. Asquith proposed to use all the machinery of the party again on the third reading to insure the adoption of the bill as amended. It was repeatedly asserted that he had taken an untenable position that he could not throw this responsibility back upon the House. It was his duty, his critics maintained, to bring forth a definite program on the question and either stand or fall by it. Mr. Asquith in reply to his critics defended the course pursued by the Government on the ground that since the question of women's suffrage ran athwart parties, it was the only policy that any Government could possibly follow, and he called attention to the division in the Opposition over the same question. 1 Sir Henry Craik appeared as the chief defender of the system of university representation. He predicted the future would witness a strong demand from the younger universities for an extension rather than an abolition of the system of university representation. At the end of the third day's debate on July 12, the bill passed a second reading by a vote of 290 ayes to 218 noes. The debate on the whole was much less spirited than that on the Plural Voting Bill of 1906. There was nothing like the bitter partisan attitude over the abolition of plural voting which 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xl : 2267-77. go FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [296 was displayed at that time. In fact it appeared that the fight over this question was practically won before the bill was introduced. The bill was not one which commanded great support from; any party or any particular group or section of people. The adult suffragists were not enthusiastic about the measure because it did not go far enough. The support of the Labor party was thus largely alienated. The Liberal women's suffrage supporters were not enthusiastic about it because the whole question concerning which they were most interested was excluded from consideration entirely. The Conservative women's suffrage supporters, for partisan reasons, opposed the bill for fear it would result in advan- tage to the Liberal party. There was behind the bill no class solidarity to arouse popular enthusiasm. This had been the chief driving force back of the other great electoral reform bills. The bill did not come up for consideration again until January 23, 1913. During this interval a great many de- velopments had taken place which affected materially the position of the bill and the attitude which various factions took towards it. The anti-suffrage workers did all in their power to complicate the situation and to embarrass the Government. The suffrage supporters themselves were divided as to the extent of franchise which should be granted and the character of amendment to be supported. There was also the Home Rule Bill which in itself had nothing to do with the merits of the question of women's suffrage, yet it had an important practical relation. As in the case of the Conciliation Bill, which the Nationalists had been largely responsible for defeating, there was danger that the same motives would cause them to oppose any women's suffrage amendments. Rumors were rife that if a women's suffrage amendment were adopted there would 297] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 91 be resignations from the Cabinet, which might embarrass the Government to such an extent that the Home Rule Bill could not be passed. During the summer and autumn of 1912 the militants continued their campaign of opposition to the Government with increasing vigor. They interrupted meetings of Government speakers whenever possible. Stone throwing* and window breaking had become a regular policy and there had been occasional attempts at arson. In October the an- nouncement was also made that they would oppose the Labor members as well as the Government members. 1 As the time approached for the consideration of the women's suffrage amendments to the bill, the militants decided to suspend militant tactics so as not to complicate the situa- tion. On January 13, therefore, Mrs. Pankhurst announced that they would declare a truce and that there would be no more acts of militancy until after the Government had acted on the women's suffrage question and the last amend- ment was disposed of. She, however, reiterated her belief in militancy and served notice upon the Government that if the amendments were defeated there would be more militant acts committed than the Government had ever dared to contemplate. 2 In spite of all the efforts of the conservative suffrage workers it was found impossible to get the support of all the suffrage forces back of any Conciliation amendment. This in itself greatly lessened the possibility of success. The suffrage supporters finally agreed upon four amendments which were to be introduced in the order of their impor- tance, measured by the number who would be enfranchised by their several provisions. The first, or the Grey amend- ment, was to omit the word " male " and substitute therefor 1 The Times, October 18, 1912, p. 8. 1 Ibid., January 14, 1913, p. 12. 92 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [298 the clause "every person shall be entitled." The debate upon the principle of women's suffrage was to take place over this amendment. If it should be defeated the Speaker would rule all the others out of order. But if it passed it would not settle the question as the courts had ruled that " person " meant male person. The second, or Henderson amednment, for adult suffrage, would substitute for "person shall be qualified" the clause "a person of either sex shall be qualified." This amendment was supported generally by the Labor party and would place women on exactly the same basis as men. It would enfranchise be- tween 11,000,000 and 13,000,000 women. The third, or so-called Dickinson amendment, would enfranchise the wives of electors. This had the support of Mr. Lloyd George and most of the radical suffragists. It would en- franchise about 6,000,000 women. The fourth, known as the Conciliation Amendment, was practically identical with the Conciliation Bill of the previous year and proposed to give the franchise to women who possessed the municipal franchise, that is, those who were independent occupiers. This if carried would errfranchise about 1,250,000 women. These different amendments illustrate the divided condition of the suffrage ranks. On January 23, 1913, just before Mr. Asquith introduced his motion in regard to procedure for the committee stage, Mr. Bonar Law made a move to defeat the bill. He as- serted that if any of the women's suffrage amendments were incorporated and the Government withdrew the occupation qualification for the franchise, these alterations would so change the nature of the bill, that according to parliamentary procedure a new bill would have to be introduced. 1 He asked a ruling on this point of procedure. The Speaker replied that he could make no ruling in advance upon the 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii: 643-4. 299] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 93 particular amendments. But he said, " Broadly speaking .... if such substantial amendments are made during the passage of a bill in committee as materially to affect the form and substance of the bill in such a way as to make it for all practical purposes a new bill, then it is necessary for that bill to be withdrawn and a new bill to be introduced." While he did not apply this principle, the general imipres- sion was that if these amendments were adopted then the bill would have to be withdrawn and a new one introduced. As soon as the Speaker's decision was announced, accusa- tions were current on all hands of treachery on the part of the Government and betrayal by Mr. Asquith. The anti-suf- frage press took great comfort from these developments. In spite of the possibility of the bill's being withdrawn, the amendments were proceeded with. It had been agreed under the closure proceedings that the amendments dealing with women's suffrage should be considered first in com- mittee. In accordance with this understanding the first amendment proposed in the Committee of the Whole was the Grey amendment introduced by Mr. Alfred Lyttelton providing that the word "male" (be omitted from the bill. 1 The fact that this question entirely ran athwart party lines was illustrated by the opening stages of the struggle. It was the Liberal party which was really committed to the policy of women's suffrage, yet the Prime Minister was opposed to it. The first amendment to bring it about was in the name of Sir Edward Grey of the Foreign Office, but it was introduced by a member of the opposite party a party which, traditionally at least, opposed women's suffrage. Mr. Harcourt in the opening speech in opposition to the proposed amendment, made a rather vigorous attack upon Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George because of their support of women's suffrage an attack which caused a 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii : 882-9. 94 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [300 great deal of apprehension and was used as an argument that if the amendment carried there would 'be resignations from the Cabinet. He advanced the old argument that women were physiologically and mentally different from men and unsuited to deal with political problems; but he said that if the barrier were once removed he would vote for adult suffrage. Mr. H. W. Forster, who had been counted among the supporters of women's suffrage, likewise declared his inten- tion of voting against the amendment because of the fear of adult suffrage. 1 This argument had been advanced by the anti-suffragists in order to defeat the amendmfent and seems to have caused a change in attitude of the less ardent sup- porters of the cause. The same old arguments were pre- sented on both sides of the question, a good deal of atten- tion being given to the attempt to prove either an increase or decrease in the popular demand for the reform. The effect of militant tactics also occupied considerable time in the discussion, The statement of the Speaker made the discussion of less practical value than it would have been otherwise because both supporters and opponents of the bill realized that if the amendments were passed the bill would have to be with- drawn. Both the militant and the constitutional societies recognized that there was now no opportunity of obtaining women's suffrage during the session. The Women's Social and Political Union urged both Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George to resign unless the Government would agree to make women's suffrage a Government measure. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies demanded that the Government make a declaration of its policy as to how it was going to fulfill its pledges to the women's suf- frage societies. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii : 907-9. 301 ] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 95 The Withdrawal of the Bill At the opening of the discussion on January 27, Mr. Asquith requested the Speaker to make a definite ruling upon the status of the Franchise Bill in case the women's suf- frage amendments were adopted in the committee. The Speaker ruled that if these amendments were adopted, they would introduce a new element which would so change the character of the bill as to make it substantially a new one, and in accordance with the practice of the House the bill should be withdrawn and a new bill introduced. 1 Mr. Asquith attempted to justify the procedure which had been followed by the Government and emphasized the fact that such a ruling was not in the least anticipated by the Government nor a majority of the House. He assured them that the question had not been overlooked by the Government in the consideration and drafting of the bill. It had followed the precedents in both 1867 and 1884 when women's suffrage amendments had been introduced in committee, and in neither case had the ruling of the Speaker been against the introduction of such amendments; in both cases they were debated in committee. He pointed out that the bill was framied deliberately to carry out thei pledge of the Government to permit the discussion of the women's suffrage question and the word "male" appeared in the first clause so as to facilitate that discussion. The ruling of the Speaker made it necessary for the Government to change its procedure radically. Mr. Asquith announced that it would be quite useless to proceed with the discussion of the women's suffrage amendments because they could not be incorporated in the bill. The promise of the Government had been to permit an amendment to the Franchise Bill and to provide for free discussion for the 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii : 1020-22. 96 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [302 same; since this was now impossible, the Government decided to withdraw the bill entirely. In doing this, how- ever, Mr. Asquith pledged that as soon as possible the Government would proceed with electoral reform measures including registration, redistribution, and the abolition of plural voting. In regard to the question of women's suf- frage he stated that while it would be impossible for the Government to introduce a bill, yet a private members' bill, if introduced next session, would be granted facilities by the Government. If it carried on the second reading in the House, he promised that the Government would give the bill the same facilities, in regard to the expenditure of Government time through subsequent sessions, as it would give to a Government measure. 1 Following this announcement there was a debate that con- tinued for five hours during which the policy of the Govern- ment and the predicament in which it had placed itself, were severely criticized. Mr. Bonar Law declared that the posi- tion in which the Government found itself was only a result of its hand-to-mouth policy of rushing from one bill to another with only time to think how it could continue itself in office another year. 2 He professed not to regret what had happened from the viewpoint of women's suffrage, as a much fairer opportunity could be given to discuss the matter at the next session. He did not attempt to conceal his elation over the advantage which his party had gained by the incident. Mr. Arthur Henderson accused the leader of the Op- position of being much more interested in securing a party victory than he was in seeing the House consider seriously the demands of thousands of women of the country. 3 He 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii : 1022-30. *Ibid., 1030. 'Ibid., 1031-5. 303] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF i 9 i 2 97 maintained that the proposal of the Government to give a private member time to introduce a women's suffrage bill at the next session did not redeem the pledge made by the Prime Minister. The Government had pledged that if the amendment were adopted by the House at this session then the Government would take charge of the bill until it became a law. He held that the pledge could only be redeemed when the Government promised to assume charge of the private members' bill after it had passed the second reading. He maintained that it would be very difficult for a private member actually to steer the bill through the House in all of its course and follow it through the Lords without the assistance of the Government in more ways than simply giving time. Mr. Keir Hardie assumed the same attitude towards the position of the Government as did Mr. Henderson. He maintained that in the light of experience it was absurd to suppose that a women's suffrage bill could ever become law without the power and authority of the Government behind it. 1 The manoeuvres of the Government had entirely shattered his faith in the honesty of its intentions. He unhesitatingly declared : " I believe the promise now made is mere chaff to deceive the supporters of women's suf- frage outside into the belief that the Government means business when the Government knows that is means noth- ing of the sort. The decision of the Government will cause not only disappointment but will cause despair to thousands of hearts outside the walls of this House tonight." This was in general the attitude of the Labor members. The suffrage supporters of both the Liberal and Con- servative parties were more generous in their attitude to- wards the Government. In the main they did not question its good faith but accepted the assurance which Mr. Asquith ! 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii: 1062-6. 98 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [304 had given as fulfilling the promises of the Government. The Conservatives attempted to turn the matter to party advantage and cause the Government as much embarrass- ment as possible. Lord Robert Cecil took occasion to rap the Government for its policy and the extraordinary mess in which Parliament found itself, due, as he said, to the operation of the Parliament Act and the necessity of rushing bills through in order to include them under the provisions of this Act before the end of Parliament. 1 As far as the fate of women's suffrage was concerned it was his opinion that the chances of a private members' bill with the promises of facilities offered greater opportunities for full and free discussion than the procedure which they had attempted to follow under the Government. Mr. Lloyd George supported the policy advocated by Mr. Asquith, for he believed it would offer a frank and full opportunity for a discussion of the issues. He heartily dissented from the demand of the Laborities in their inn sistence that the Government assume responsibility for the bill. He pointed out that the present experience had shown the incompatibility of such a procedure with parliamentary methods and this had demonstrated the impossibility of getting a vote upon the issue of women's suffrage when it was in connection with a Government measure. Mr. Bal- four was unkind enough to remind Mr. Lloyd George that this procedure had practically been forced upon the House by his " torpedoing " the Conciliation Bill and his machina- tions to have an amendment introduced to a Government Reform Bill. It was a much more difficult task, however, to convince the women who demanded the franchise that the Govern- ment had not followed a deliberate policy of duplicity in order to defeat their demands. Mrs. Pankhurst at a meet- i Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. xlvii : 1035-8. 305] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 99 ing of the Women's Social and Political Union held the same evening at Holborn Town Hall denounced the perfidy of the Government in most vigorous terms. The Union blamed Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Edward Grey mostt severely for the predicament in which they found themselves. The suffrage supporters believed that while posing as friends of women's suffrage these Ministers had betrayed the cause and had connived with the Prime Minister in his dishonest policy. The Union refused to accept the offer of facilities of the Prime Minister as a fulfillment of his promise and demanded a Government measure. If this were refused Mrs. Pankhurst declared that militancy would be the answer. In closing she said, "One thing we will regard as sacred, and that is human life. . . . But while we are not going to injure human beings, if it is necessary to win the vote we are going to do as much damage to their property as we can." x The Women's Freedom) League, through Mrs. Despard, an- nounced practically the same militant policy in condemna- tion of the action of the Government. They proposed to protest against man-made law by breaking the law in every possible way. They made an appeal for a great number of passive resisters who would refuse to pay the taxesi levied upon them. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, while not denouncing the policy of the Government as one of treachery, did refuse to accept the proposal of facilities, as offered by Mr. Asquith, as a fulfillment of his pledge. They demanded that a Government bill be introduced be- cause it would be impossible for a private members' bill to weather all of the parliamentary procedure without Govern- ment assistance. Mrs. Fawcett in announcing at Padding- ton Town Hall the policy to be followed by the National 1 The Times, January 28, 1913, p. 6. . 100 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [306 Union said they would cease to work for a private members' bill and they would attempt to secure a women's suffrage Cabinet which would foster a women's suffrage bill. Since only the Labor party would give them full-hearted support for such a bill, they pledged their influence to this party. She emphasized the fact that there would be no change in constitutional tactics. " I think militancy has been our great enemy. ... It has done us immense harm .... we are claiming as other societies are doing, a Government Bill for the enfranchisement of women." * The Women's Labor League also appealed for determined political war- fare at the ballot box; they repudiated a campaign of childish and futile action. If Mr. Asquith had deliberately planned to defeat the women's suffrage bills and to divide the women's suffrage supporters, he could not have done it more successfully than by his promise of facilities for an amendment to the Reform Bill. In 1911 their forces were united back of the Conciliation Bill. They could not revert to that position because of factional bitterness. The Government's promise of facilities for the amendment to the Reform Bill had been used to defeat the Conciliation Bill in 1912; and the developments culminating in the Speaker's ruling meant temporary disaster to the suffrage movement. It meant that the constructive forces had to begin all over again in their campaign for unity. Mr. Asquith no doubt did not plan nor foresee the actual turn of events. He himself, however, was unalterably opposed to women's suffrage; he did use all of his power to defeat the Conciliation Bill ; he promised facilities for 1912 only because of the growing pressure of the suffrage advocates. When the Reform Bill was promised, he doubtless recognized, along with Mr. Lloyd George, that it would defeat the Conciliation Bill 1 Manchester Guardian, January 29, 1913, p. 9. 307] FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL OF 1912 and that it would be more difficult for the suffrage forces to unite upon an amendment to a Government Bill than upon a private members' bill unaffected with other issues. But he used this method to defeat the suffrage forces without anticipating the Speaker's ruling. It seems that this method of attack upon the bill was first planned in connection with the amendment introduced by Mr. Pease on January 9, which had for its purpose the deletion of the occupation qualification for the franchise. 1 The members of the City of London declared that the pas- sage of this amendment would deprive the business and great comsmercial interests of the City of any voice in the Government and would leave it to the mercies of the votes of janitors, caretakers, and the night population, which would be ruinous to the prosperity and position of the City. Both Liberal and Conservative members from the City of London demanded that the City be exempt from 1 the opera- tion of this amendment. In their attempt to preserve the occupation qualification Sir Frederick Banbury discovered the possibility of the bill's being declared out of order in case this amendment were adopted. He consulted the Speaker concerning the point and was informed that it was certainly a point for argument. With this possibility in mind the Conservatives and the anti-suffrage supporters combined their efforts to defeat the bill on point of pro- cedure. This resulted in Bonar Law's raising the question on January 24, and the subsequent withdrawal of the bill. The outcome of this whole procedure was nothing less than disastrous to electoral and franchise reform. The Government had placed itself in a position where it would be very difficult to get any Reform Bill passed because it had incurred the relentless opposition of the women's suffrage supporters, and their strength, at this time, had to be 1 Manchester Guardian, January 25, 1913, p. 9. I0 2 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [308 reckoned with. Because of the opposition to piecemeal legislation the prospects were not very bright for removing even the more glaring evils in the electoral system. Until there was a change in Government it appeared that if a women's suffrage bill ever became law it would have to be by means of a private members' bill. The policy of the Government had so divided the suffrage forces that no kind of united action seemed to be possible. They were divided into the militant and nonmilitant groups as well as into party factions. The attempt to secure all the electoral and franchise re- forms by one general bill had resulted in miserable failure. After 1912 the movements for these reforms again ran along independent lines. The suffrage forces had to begin to work for unity upon a new basis. Their movement was only incidentally connected with the other proposals of franchise reform. CHAPTER VI ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN IN 1913 AND 1914 AFTER the withdrawal of the Reform Bill the struggle for the franchise for women began to develop into an im- passe from which it was extricated only by the European War. The militants had become so exasperated with the dealings of the Government that they now virtually declared civil war upon society. They stopped short only of taking human life, and even life was constantly placed in jeopardy in their attempts to compel the Government to grant con- cessions. When the militant tactics were first adopted, they were opposed in the main by the constitutional societies, yet these societies recognized that the militants were arousing public interest and making a certain contribution to the movement. By 1912, however, the constitutionalists be- came openly antagonistic and devoted as much of their energy to counteracting the work of the militants as they did to attempting to convert the anti-suffragists. There was also the line of party cleavage. Taking the advice of the Government, the suffrage supporters dropped a nonpartisan Conciliation Bill to attempt to amend a partisan Government Bill. This ended so disastrously that the Liberal suffrage forces became convinced that the only hope for success was by a women's suffrage partisan measure. While they continued to consult with the Con- servative suffragists they insisted upon a Liberal Bill. The Nationalists also continued to view the question from a political standpoint and not upon merits ; thus the suffrage forces were hopelessly divided along partisan lines. With the supporters of women's suffrage working along these 309] 103 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [310 divergent lines the hope for success of their cause began to vanish. The militants did not leave the public in doubt very long as to the seriousness of the war which they had declared. Windows were broken, golf lawns damaged, letter boxes opened and letters destroyed, articles in museums damaged, attempts were made to burn private homes, public buildings, churches and cathedrals, and bombs were constantly concealed in public places. On February 19, 1913, a bomb exploded in a house in the course of erection which belonged to Mr. Lloyd George. The next day Mrs. Pankhurst speaking at Cardiff announced that she accepted full responsibility for the act and that the authori- ties need look no further. 1 A few days later she was arrested and charged under the Malicious Injury to Pro- perty Act. When the case came up on April 2, she con- ducted her own defense and in no way attempted to escape responsibility for the act, but she announced that if sentenced she would go on a hunger strike and would be out in a few days to carry on the struggle. She was sen- tenced to three years' penal servitude. She carried out her threat and was shortly released in a state of exhaus- tion as a result of the hunger strike. As soon as she re- covered she was rearrested and again sent to prison under the so-called " Cat and Mouse " Act. 2 But after sixteen months, up to the beginning of the war in August, 1914, she had served but six weeks of her three years' sentence. 3 This is only typical of the more serious character of the militant policy which exasperated the public and ceased to make converts for the cause the militants advocated. 1 The Times, February 20, 1913, p. 6. "The Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act provided for the rearrest of prisoners who were discharged from prison owing to the adoption of the hunger strike. The purpose was to compel them to serve their entire sentence. 'Metcalfe, op. cit., p. 262. 3 n] ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN 105 The Government found it increasingly difficult to handle the situation, and to deal with the prisoners when they went on hunger strikes as most of them did. The practice of forcible feeding caused so much public criticism that it was for the most part abandoned. Since the militants were openly inciting people to violence, the Home Secretary issued orders to the police to prevent meetings from being held by the Women's Social and Political Union in Hyde Park and other public places. This led to many a fight for freedom of speech. A little later on April 30, the Head- quarters of the Union were raided and the office force placed under arrest. The attempt was also made to sup- press their publication, The Suffragette; but in spite of the efforts of the police it continued to appear, though somewhat irregularly. The Government thus adopted a more vigor- ous policy than it had previously pursued, but it cannot be said that it was more effective; the militants could not be deterred from their policy by fear. In the meantime the parliamentary supporters of the cause were attempting to frame a bill in order to take advantage of Mr. Asquith's promise for facilities. The Liberals had appointed a drafting committee of which Sir John Simon was chairman. The Conservatives had followed a similar plan. While the members of the parties were willing to cooperate and agreed that a single bill was the better course to follow, they found the degree of unity necessary for the drafting o>f a joint bill rather difficult to attain. Since an agreed bill was found impossible it was drafted along the lines demanded by the Liberals and so framed as to permit amendments to be made by the Con- servatives in the committee stage. Dickinson's Women's Suffrage Bill of 1913 The bill was introduced for a first reading by Mr. Dickinson on April 3. and came up for a second reading on I0 6 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [312 May 5. 1 It was based upon the household franchise. It provided that every woman who possessed the household qualification or was the wife of a man who was entitled to* registration in respect of a household qualification would be entitled to register as a parliamentary elector and vote in the constituency were she qualified. 2 She must, according to the bill, have resided in the constituency for twelve months prior to July 15. The bill also limited the right of registration to women over twenty-five years of age. It was estimated that the bill would enfranchise between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 women. The question of militancy was uppermost in the minds of the speakers. In fact, of the thirty-eight speakers less than half a dozen omitted some reference to this question. Mr. Dickinson appealed to the members not to be prej- udiced against the bill because of the outrageous acts of a small group. Mr. Lief Jones while agreeing that the Gov- ernment should not yield to violence, pointed out that practically every franchise reform which had been granted by either party had been accompanied by some acts of violence. 3 Sir J. Compton-Rickett saw in the militant tactics the forebodings of what would happen if women were ever elected to the House.* If they did not get what they wanted they would proceed to break the rules and regulations as they had done outside of the House. Sir Frederick Low 5 and Mr. Harold Cawley, 6 both of whom had been suffrage supporters, now announced that they would vote against the bill because of the militant tactics. The fact that the bill was too extensive in its scope also came in for considerable objection. Mr. J. M. Henderson, 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 52: 1704-15. 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1913, vol. v, Bill 75. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 52: 1811-19. 'Ibid., 1888-93. *Ibid., 1923-7- 'Ibid., 1952-6. 313] ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN while he favored a limited extension of the franchise, op- posed doubling the electorate at one stroke. 1 Sir Charles Hunter assumed the same attitude; he had voted for the Conciliation Bill but he opposed this bill. 2 In fact this was the position taken by most of the Conservative suffragists. There was scarcely an argument which had been advanced against women's suffrage that did not come in for its share of discussion during the two days' debate. Mr. Lynch was the only Nationalist who took part in the debate, and he supported the measure. The absence of Irish participa- tion in the discussion was due, according to Mr. Atherly Jones, to the fear lest they miight embarrass the Govern- ment and thus endanger the Home Rule Bill. At the close of the second day's debate when the division was made, the bill failed a second reading by a vote of 219 to 266. On the whole the debate was of an academic character; the arguments on both sides were entirely thread- bare. The attendance in the House at one time was as low as fourteen. While it had been conceded generally that the bill would be defeated yet the big majority against the measure came as a great surprise to its supporters. The Laborites and Independent Nationalists alone gave a unan- imous vote in the affirmative. 3 The Unionists gave a much 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 52 : 1749-52. *Ibid., 1779-80. * The parties voted as follows: For Against Liberals 146 74 Unionists 28 141 Nationalists 8 54 Independent Nationalists 5 Labor 34 221 269 This gives a total of five more votes than were reported' by the tellers in the official record, two in the affirmative and three in the negative. The Common Cause, May 16, 1913, p. 84. I0 8 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND larger vote in the negative than was anticipated, a party majority of 113. The Nationalist vote again revealed the fact that the question was not decided on its merits but with reference to the fortunes of the Home Rule Bill. The vote did not represent a change in belief in regard to women's suffrage so much as it revealed the fact that the question was not of so fundamental importance as its sup- porters had believed. Very few members of Parliament put this question before party interest or advantage. As long as there were no conflicting motives they would vote for the bill, but under complicated circumstances and a highly charged political atmosphere they were unwilling to take any chance and either abstained from voting or voted in the opposition. The fact that it was a Liberal party bill and not an agreed measure caused a large number of Con- servative suffragists to vote against the bill for paity reasons. The outbreak of militancy in its new and destruc- tive form also alienated the sympathy of the public. There was deep-seated resentment and a reaction against this des- truction of property, especially when it so often fell upon those who were in no way responsible for the policy of the Government. The women's suffrage societies were not especially disappointed over the results because it only vin- dicated the position they had taken. All of these societies opposed the bill, because they were convinced that it was useless to attempt to secure action by means of a private members' bill. They insisted on a Government measure. 1 They demanded that Mr. Asquith redeem the pledge which he made to them in 1911. During the whole of 1913 questions were repeatedly put in Parliament, more especially to Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, concerning the treatment of prisoners, militant methods, hunger strikes, the amount of damage done by 1 The Common Cause, May 2, 1913, p. 32. 315] ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN 109 militant outbreaks, and the operation of the " Cat and Mouse " Act. The Government was also constantly under fire for its methods of dealing with the problem. These questions and the criticism of the policy of the Government kept the matter before the House and caused continual agitation of the subject. Things had in fact reached an intolerable position. The Government and the public looked with abhorrence upon the continuance of the situation yet the militants showed no signs of abatement of their activi- ties. From the legislative standpoint there was little hope that any bill could be passed during the existing Parliament. The prospects did not improve with the opening of the next session of Parliament In the first place the women's suffrage societies were united in their demands that the question be taken up by a Government Bill and refused to put forth any effort to support a private members' bill. 1 On the ballot for private members' bill no one, who would introduce a women's suffrage bill, secured a place and the Government refused to grant facilities for a bill to be in- troduced on its own time. This blocked the possibility of a women's suffrage bill in the House during the session. 2 Militancy in 1914 During the first half of 1914 events were rapidly drifting towards a crisis. The Government was in no frame of mind 1 The Vote, January 16, 1914, p. 191. 2 There was one other recourse for parliamentary discussion which had not been utilized for years that was the House of Lords. The very novelty of a women's suffrage bill in the House of Lords added interest and zest to the proposal. The bill, which was introduced by the Earl of Selbourne, granted the parliamentary franchise to women who already possessed the municipal franchise and would, according to his estimate, include about 1,000,000 women. (Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, Lords, vol. 16:7-17.) At the close of the second day's debate the bill was defeated by a vote of 60 to 104. Of the eighteen' speeches delivered, eleven were in favor of and seven opposed to the bill. It was evident the bill would be defeated, but it served' to keep the subject before Parliament and the country. IIO FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [316 to make concessions. Parliament, which at the opening session had been in favor of women's suffrage by a large majority, had now defeated a women's suffrage bill twice and no private member with a place on the ballot could be in- duced to introduce a bill. In February Mr. Asquith had even refused to receive a deputation of men from! Edin- burgh, Glasgow, and other Scottish centers. He also re- fused to meet representatives of the Northern Men's! Federation for Women's Suffrage. 1 The constitutional societies were placed largely upon the defensive and were under the necessity of constantly reassuring the public that they had no part in nor sympathy with militant methods. In June the Women's Liberal Federation adopted a resolu- tion condemning militant methods in the strongest terms and calling upon the Government to adopt adequate measures to prevent disorders and protect property. 2 Two days later a similar statement in the form of a joint mani- festo was issued by the National Union of Women's Suf- frage Societies and the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association. 3 Even ninety-four branches of the Independent Labor Party passed resolutions which would prohibit militant suffragettes from speaking from Socialist or Labor platforms. In spite of the assurances of the Government that it had the militant situation well in hand, the conditions during 1914 continued to grow worse. The number of crimes and their seriousness continued to increase. In the first seven months of 1914 that is, until the beginning of the war there were a total of 141 of these outrages reported in the papers.* While the Government was supposed to have taken steps to deal with the problem, only thirty-five arrestsi 1 The Times, February 16, 1914, p. 10. *Ibid., June n, 1914, p. 8. *Ibid., June 13, 1914, p. 9. *Metcalfe, op. fit., p. 319. 317] ATTEMPTS TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN were made. These crimes ranged all the way from window smashing to the burning of historic churches and cathedrals, the bombing of houses and public buildings, the destruction of works of art, and personal attacks upon public men. In the earlier stages of militancy before violent methods were adopted, the militants had succeeded in directing public attention to their cause. They removed the question of women's suffrage fromi the realm of discussion to the realm of politics. They were successful in getting their arguments before the public through the press. But after 1913 their methods caused a very strong reaction. The papers no longer published their speeches or suffrage arguments, but gave only accounts of their crimes and their violations of law. Thus the whole purpose of their agita- tion was lost sight of and they were looked upon as a public menace; deportation was often advocated. This policy alienated friends, turned indifference into hostility and transformed passive into active opposition. It resulted in arousing a passionate resentment and detestation of the whole cause of women's suffrage, and the public loathed the prospects of granting political power to women who had committed these crimes. In the early days of militancy the crowd was usually in sympathy with the militants and against the police, but now the situation was reversed. The crowd frequently used very rough tactics with the militants and the police were often unrestrained in the use of force and even brutality in handling the women. But hardships, rough handling, forcible feeding, imprisonment, public disdain had no deterring power for these women. In fact, some of them were convinced that only martyrdom could bring about the triumph of the cause which they held dearer than life itself; they did not shrink even from this sacrifice. These things exasperated the Government and the public the more because during these months they were absorbed in the Irish Home Rule Bill and the threatened H2 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [318 Ulster rebellion. They had neither time nor disposition to deal with questions of franchise reform. On the outbreak of the European War in August, 1914, the militants immediately declared a truce for the period of hostilities and turned their organization and energy into relief work for the women, children, and the wounded. 1 The constitutional societies took similar action ; the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies mobilized their forces in nearly 600 societies for relief work, and on September 25, announced the suspension of their ordinary political activi- ties. Three days after the declaration of war the question was raised in the House of Commons concerning the release of all political prisoners. On August 10, Mr. McKenna an- nounced that the remainder of the sentences of all persons imprisoned because of crimes in connection with suffrage agitation had been remitted and that they were to be re- leased. Thus both the suffrage supporters and the Government were able to extricate themselves from the impasse into which the controversy had developed. Things had reached an unbearable position on both sides ; it had become a ques- tion of endurance between the militants, the Government, and the public. With this national emergency neither side had to acknowledge defeat; they were brought together hi the common cause for the nation. The women were given an unusual opportunity to display their heroism and to demonstrate their contribution to the strength and defense of the state. Little did the militants foresee that their watchword and slogan, " Deeds, not words," would be wrought out under such unexpected and tragic circum- stances. For a time the question of women's suffrage entirely dropped from public discussion or consideration. The whole attention of the nation was diverted from domestic controversies to the problem ofrnational existence. 1 The Vote, August 14, 1914, p. 278. CHAPTER VII ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTIN& IN 1913 AND THE attempt of the Government to deal with all the franchise and registration questions in the Reform Bill of 1912 had resulted in the failure of the bill and embarrass- ment to the Government. This placed the Government, in relation to franchise reform, in. a difficult position. If it introduced another general reform bill without including women's suffrage it feared the opposition of the members of the Labor party together with a large numiber of other women's suffrage supporters as well as the combined op- position of the women's suffrage societies. These, to- gether with the Conservatives, presented an opposition which was entirely too formidable. The Government, therefore, adopted the policy of dealing with the questions included in the Reform Bill by piecemeal. It hoped to obtain its most cherished reformfe by this means and thus avoid the question of women's suffrage. 1 1 At one- time there was the possibility that the Government might assume the responsibility for the Baker Bill. This was introduced in February, 1912, by ! Mr. Harold Baker and had for its sole purpose the abolition of plural voting. Parliamentary Papers, 1912, vol. v, Bill i. While this was not a Government Bill Mr. Baker had had the assistance of the 'Solicitor-General in drafting the measure. The Government was interested in keeping this bill alive so that in case the Reform Bill was not passed, it could then make this a Government measure and thus abolish plural voting by a single act. But so disastrous was the withdrawal of the Reform Bill that the Government dared not immediately sponsor this measure and it never came up again al- though it passed a second reading on March i, 1912. 319] "3 II4 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [320 Plural Voting Bill of 1913 Following out this policy of the Government. Mr. Pease, author of the Reform Bill of 1912, on April 8, 1913, asked permission to introduce a bill dealing with plural voting. 1 The bill was very short, dealing with only the one subject. It provided simply that at a general parliamentary election an elector who was registered in more than one constituency could not vote in more than one of the constituencies in which he was registered. * This prohibited plural voting only in the general elections. In by-elections an elector could vote in any constituency in which he was registered. The bill included universities within the meaning of constituencies. The penalty imposed for a violation of the statute was a maximum fine of 200 or a maximum period of one year's imprisonment as well as incapacitation from holding any judicial or public office or voting in any election for a period of seven years. Mr. Pease estimated that the bill would eliminate something like 525,000 plural voters at the general election. The familiar arguments advanced by the Opposition against the bill were that it dealt only with one anomaly which was for party advantage and that it left untouched the far greater evil of redistribution. The Unionist, in the main, defended the plural voter because of the stake which the property holder had in the locality. Some admitted that the plural voter was, to an extent, an anomaly, though not necessarily an evil. They were not alone in their opposition to the policy of the Government. Mr. Snowden speaking as a member of the Labor party assured the Government that he would oppose the bill at every stage in spite of the fact that he favored the abolition of plural 1 Parliamentary Debates, sth series, voL 51: 1015. 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1913, vol. v, Bill 240. 32 1 ] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 115 voting. He resented the fact that the Government had postponed to an indefinite day the question of an effective scheme of electoral reform and from the wreckage of the Reform! Bill had selected one item which from the point of importance and urgency was the least important. " I shall," said he, " oppose the bill, because I believe it will, if passed, indefinitely postpone a more comprehensive scheme, and I shall oppose it most of all because I believe it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to evade the very definite promise they have given to the women of the country in regard to women's suffrage." * The Government defended the bill on the ground that it was a short measure which dealt with a single anomaly, and that it was the purpose of the Governrnent to bring in al general reform bill which would deal with redistribution be- fore the next general election. It, however, refused to add a clause to the bill which would make it inoperative until a redistribution bill was passed. The bill passed the second reading by a vote of 314 to 227. The committee stage occupied five days, one of which was an all-night session. The chief amendments offered at- tempted to limit the scope of the bill. The most important of these provided that the scope of the bill be limited to those registered in respect of ownership; to exempt the university constituencies from the provisions of the bill ; to exempt the City of London from its scope; to exempt all plural voters at the time of the passage of the bill from its operation ; to postpone the operation of the bill till January i, 1916; and to exclude Ireland from the scope of the measure. The Governmient was unyielding in its position and was strong enough to prevent any of the amendments from being adopted. The bill passed a third reading by al vote of 293 to 222. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 52: 1249. H6 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [322 The bill was read a first time in the House of Lords with- out discussion and came up for a second reading on July 24. There were again marshalled in review the chief Unionist arguments against the abolition of the plural voter. The defeat of the bill by the House of Lords was inevitable; the debate was not very animated and little interest was shown on either side. In fact when the bill came up for discussion there were only fourteen supporters of the Government present. The bill was disposed of by the Lords in one sitting, being defeated by a vote of 42 ayes to 1 66 noes. This was not a final disposition of the bill; it was reintroduced the next session according to the pro- vision of the Parliament Act of 1911. The debate occa- sioned no interest outside of Parliament and caused no general public discussion. In fact there were no editorial comments on the subject when it passed a third reading in the House; The Times did not even mention the matter when it was defeated by the Lords on a second reading. London Election Bill of 1913 At the same time that the plural voting bill was before Parliament, another bill was introduced which had for its chief object the consolidation of London into a single parliamentary constituency, thus abolishing plural voting in this district. The measure was introduced by Mr. Glanville on May 2, as a private member's bill. 1 It was essentially the same as the bill introduced by the Government in 1909 and defeated by the Lords. It adopted the principle of suc- cessive occupation for the whole of the borough of London which was made one parliamentary constituency instead of the twenty-eight into which the metropolis was divided. 2 The bill also provided that the clerk of the London County 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 52: 1547. 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1913, vol. iv, Bill 6. 323] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 117 Council should be the registration authority for the whole of the constituency which would make for much greater uniformity in registration. This bill was characterized by the Opposition as " another example of the wire puller's art." Besides objecting to the abolition of the plural voter in London they also criticised the Government severely for its duplication of bills upon the same subject and the consequent waste of parliamentary time. This was not a Government bill, but the criticism seemed to be justified by the fact that within a week three bills had been introduced dealing with electoral matters. All the points touched upon in this bill were covered by bills already before Parliament. On division the bill passed a second reading by a vote of 193 to 103 and was referred to a standing committee. The bill was reported back to the House without amendment but it never came up again. 1 Plural Voting Bill of 1914 The Plural Voting Bill which was defeated by the Lords in 1913 was reintroduced in 1914 and came up for second reading on April 27. 2 The Conservatives laid special emr phasis upon the fact that the bill was not accompanied by a redistribution .measure. In answer to this charge Mr. Pease, on behalf of the Government, offered to confer with the Opposition as .to a basis for a redistribution bill. This overture was refused by Mr. Pretyman on the ground that they could not enter into any such agreement until they knew what the Government proposed to do with the Home 1 During the session bills were introduced] to shorten the registration period, to enable absent voters to vote at parliamentary elections, to provide for redistribution and to enable soldiers and sailors on duty and absent from their parliamentary constituencies to cast their votes at parliamentary elections. None of these bills received more than a first reading. 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 61 : 13/9. FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [324 Rule Bill, especially since redistribution chiefly affected Ireland. l Lord Hugh Cecil did not let the opportunity go by without bringing* up the matter of women's suffrage and attacking the Government for its dealing with the question. During the third reading, on both sides of the House, the attitude toward the bill was based entirely upon party considerations. The Conservatives defended the plural voter upon a variety of grounds, all of which came back to the distrust and fear of democracy and the protection of property. Realizing that they would be outvoted, they attempted to use every argument possible to cause dissension among the supporters of the Government. They were especially artful in the use of the Irish question for this purpose. The bill came up for a second reading in the House of Lords on July 15. The debate recapitulated (the old argu- ments on the question and occupied only a few hours, for it was evident that the bill would be defeated and no amount of discussion would change any votes. Little interest was shown in the procedure. The Lords lived up to their reputation and rejected the bill, for a second time, by the vote of 49 to 1 19. As in the previous year the bill attracted no popular attention and was discussed and defeated with practically no comment in the press, so con- cerned was the public over the Irish situation." 1 Parliamentary Debates, $th series, vol. ii : vol. 63 : 878. 'Several other bills dealing with minor phases of electoral machinery and methods were introduced during the session in 1914. A bill re- quiring that all contested elections, at a general election, be held on the same day, was accorded a second reading and came up to the report stage but got no farther than this. Bills were also introduced which granted the right of franchise to absent voters, to shorten the period of registration, to provide for preferential voting and alternative voting, but none of these were accorded more than a second reading. A resolution introduced by Mr. Lyell favoring alternative voting in parliamentary elections was passed by a majority vote. 325] ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH PLURAL VOTING 119 In 1914 the prospects were that the Plural Voting Bill would be pushed through the next session of Parliament and become law under the provisions of the Parliament Act of 1911. The Liberals had been, up to the beginning of the war, in power for eight years and had not passed a single important measure in relation to franchise and electoral matters. The bills dealing with plural voting had all been defeated by the House of Lords and the one general franchise reform bill had been withdrawn by the Government. With the beginning of the war the discus- sion of franchise and electoral questions was dropped, but it came up again rather unexpectedly in connection with the franchise rights of the military and naval forces. This paved the way for general legislation upon the whole sub- ject. CHAPTER VIII EMERGENCY PARLIAMENTARY AND REGISTRATION LEGISLATION WITH the beginning of the war a general political truce was entered into. The Government agreed not to foster any bill of a controversial nature but to confine its activities entirely to the prosecution of the war and matters that related thereto. It was the general feeling in both parties that it would not be to the best interest of the Empire to have a general election during the war. In July, 1915, a bill was passed which postponed all municipal and local elections for the year. 1 It also provided that all registration should cease on July 31, 1915, which meant that the old register of 1914 continued in force although its duration was limited to December 31, I9i6. 2 Parliament and Registration Act of 1916 On January 27, 1916, four days before the life of the existing Parliament would have legally terminated, the Parliament and Registration Bill received the Royal assent. This law extended the life of Parliament for eight months. It also provided that the bills under the Parliament Act of 1911 would not be lost simply because they were not passed at tthe succeeding session of Parliament. This kept alive the Plural Voting Bill and permiitted it to be intro- duced any time during the continuance of the existing 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 73 : 1833-72 ; 2457. * Parliamentary Papers, 1914-1916, vol. i, Bill 138. 120 [326 PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION Parliament. The law of the previous July was also amended so that the register was to continue in force until Parliament provided a substitute and no steps were to be taken to provide a register until directions were given by Parliament. This act virtually suspended the whole regis- tration machinery. The Parliament and Registration Act obviously did not settle any question permanently; it was only a temporary measure. Very soon after its passage the members of Parliament began to ask the Prime Minister what policy the Government proposed to follow in regard to registra- tion, in regard to the treatment of men who were disqualified because of being absent in the army, navy, and various kinds of war services, and concerning the next general election and the duration of the existing Parliament. While there was very little demand for an election during the war, the question of the register did present an immediate problem. A cabinet crisis might arise at any time which would make an election inevitable even during the war. If an election occurred it would have to be held under the register of 1914 which, because of changes in residence and absence from constituencies in war work, included only about 50 per cent of the electors. This presented not a simple but a very complex problem and opened up the whole franchise question again. If a new register were to be prepared, the old limitations based as they were so largely upon occupancy, would have to be changed so as to bring the soldiers, sailors, and munition workers, who were absent from home, on the register, and also to provide machinery which would be effective in enabling them to vote. Such changes would virtually amount to adult manhood suffrage which would be an extension of the franchise. Thus the whole ques- tion of franchise qualifications was involved. With these questions under consideration by the Government, the advo- 122 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [328 cates of women's suffrage, with the new argument of the splendid national service performed by women during the war, came forward and insisted that if all these questions came within the scope of a registration scheme, so must also the statutory limitations as to sex. They demanded ithat if the sex disqualification could not be removed by a registration bill, then the Government must deal with the whole question by means of a franchise bill. Select Committee of 1916 On July 12, 1916, Mr. Asquith announced thai since the Government had been unable to agree upon an uncontrover- sial solution of the franchise and registration problems, it had decided to ask the House to set up at once a Select Committee which would deal with all of these matters. 1 It was the intention of the Government that this Select Com- mittee should decide ; first, whether a new register should be made ; second, whether all men in the army and navy should be placed on a new register; third, how men m service were to cast their votes while on duty; fourth, how munition workers who had been disqualified were to be placed on the register; fifth, whether women should 'be placed on the register ; and finally, whether there should be a general elec- tion during the war. Mr. Herbert Samuel. Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced the motion, was rather half-hearted in his support of this method of procedure and he was doubtful whether it would be able to accomplish anything. 2 He was not left in doubt very long as to the attitude of the House towards the proposition. Sir Edward Carson immediately launched a vigorous attack upon the policy of the Government. 3 He held up to ridicule the idea 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 84: 343-6. 1039-45. *Ibid., 1045-52. 329] PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION 123 that the Government should turn over this task, which it could not agree upon, to a committee. He accused the Government of destroying the register of 1915 when it was in the process of preparation so they could further post- pone a general election. " This committee," said he, " will lead to nothing. This committee is a farce. The Hon. Gentleman has proposed it as a farce." All of the eight speakers who followed Mr. Samuel in the debate criticised the policy of the Government. It was the consensus of opinion that all of these problems ought to be settled by the Government and not by a committee which had no power and whose decision would in no way be 'binding. Mr. McNeil I, one of the members named on the Com- mittee, declined to serve because of the discouraging otitlook presented by Mr. Samuel and the opposition to the plan of the Government which developed. Mr. Asquith, evidently having been informed as to how the debate was going, hastily appeared in the House while Mr. McNeill was speaking and after attempting to explain the position of the Government, said he did not wash to press the matter. 1 He announced that the Government would make a proposi- tion of its own and asked leave to withdraw the motion. Such a procedure as this in normal times might easily have proved fatal to the Government ; tinder the circumstances it was universally taken as an evidence of the inability of the Government to deal with difficult problems one among many other signs of its weakness. The Government was now compelled to find a way out of the difficulty, and it had to face the matter with impaired prestige. The increasing volume of criticism against the incapacity of the Government made the need for a new register all the more urgent. While there were compara- tively few who demanded an election at this time, there 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 84 : 1073-5. FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [330 were a great many who were apprehensive lest a crisis might arise at any time which would necessitate a general election. With the approach of the termination of the life of Parlia- ment in September some definite policy and action were necessary. The Unionist War Committee took advantage of this situation and Sir E. Carson served notice upon Mr. Asquith that they would oppose any extension of the life of Parliament which was not accompanied by a bill to make a new register. 1 The Unionists were supported in this action by the Liberal War Committee. They also demanded that this register include soldiers and sailors who were serving or had served with the forces during the war. This in- volved, of course, changing the basis of the registration and of the franchise qualifications. The women's suffrage societies were keenly alive to the possibilities of the situation. On August 4 they sent a statement to Mr. Asquith in which they made their position very clear in regard to registration reforms. They stated that if the registration reforms were limited to insuring that men who were already on the parliamentary register should not be disqualified by reason of absence on war work, then they would not oppose 'such legislation. But if the Govern- ment proposed to make changes which would establish a new voting qualification or shorten the period of residence so as to put new names on the register, then this would in- volve the question of the rights of women and they must be included. 2 This was signed on behalf of thirteen women's organizations. They were supported in this posi- tion by Lord Robert Cecil, and the great body of women's suffrage advocates. 3 1 The Times, August u, 1916, p. 9. *The Common Cause, August n, 1916, p. 227. "Manchester Guardian, August 7, 1916, p. 4. 33 1 ] PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION 12$ Special Register Bill The Government finally decided to deal with the ques- tions in two separate bills. 1 The first of these, the Parlia- ment and Local Election Bill, provided for the extension of Parliament for seven more months, that is, to April 30, 1917. This bill was hurried through Parliament, met with very little opposition, and received the Royal assent on August 23. ~ The second of these bills, the Special Register Bill, was -introduced on August i6. 5 It provided for a new register which was to go into effect May 31, 1917. In order to make this new register as nearly up to date as possible, the qualifying period was postponed from July 15 to November i. In order to deal with the questions of disqualifications and yet not introduce the women's suf- frage question, the bill provided that all those who were otherwise qualified but who had left their homes to engage in any kind of war work would not be disqualified but would be placed on the register, whether or not they had retained their qualifying premises. It also placed on the register all those who were interrupted in the course of their qualifica- tion by entrance into national service. No attempt was made generally to enable soldiers and sailors or those away from home to cast their votes or to shorten the period of qualification. The Government justified this policy on the ground that any other course was fraught with so many political prob- lems of a controversial nature that it was impossible to deal with them during the existing crisis. If the soldiers and sailors were placed on the register, that raised the practical and military question of enabling them actually to 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 85 : 1447-58. f lbid., 2701. *lbid., 1650; 1891. I2 6 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [332 cast their votes. But the real problem from the standpoint of the Government was that this could not be accomplished without including the question of women's suffrage which opened up again the old controversy. The Government decided, therefore, to introduce only a temporary measure, dealing with the question of registration and not attempting to alter the franchise qualifications. As was expected this proposal encountered very strong opposition. The attack on the policy of the Government was led by Sir E. Carson because the bill did not include provision for the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors and machinery which would enable those at the front to cast their votes. 1 This bill proved almost as humiliating to the Government as its proposal for a Select Committee. Of the fourteen speeches made eleven were opposed to the bill; no one spoke in favor of the bill except members of the Govern- ment. Even Mr. Long, the author of the bill, attempted to justify it on the ground that under the circumstances it was the best the Government could do in a makeshift fashion without taking up the whole franchise question. During the debate two possibilities were suggested, which prevented open revolt against the policy of the Government. The first was the possibility of amending the bill, by means of instructions, before going into the committee, so as to include the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors. The other was the possibility of amending the Ballot Act so as to enable soldiers and sailors, who were absent from their constituencies, to vote. When the bill came up again after adjournment on November I, the Speaker ruled that any such instructions to include soldiers and sailors within the scope of the bill would constitute a new bill. This deprived the measure of its last friend and it was later withdrawn by the Government. 1 Parliamentary Debates, sth series, vol. 85: 1891-8. 333] PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION Thus another attempt to deal with the registration ques- tion ended in humiliation for the Government and utter failure to obtain a new register. Yet from the discussion! of this bill came a suggestion which was destined to lead to a happy solution of the franchise and registration difficulty. CHAPTER IX REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1918 DURING the debate on the Special Register Bill on August 1 6, when the Government was in vain attempting to provide even a temporary register, a suggestion was made which was destined to make a compromise possible and to initiate the most far-reaching reform in the English franchise system. Mr. Asquith was hard pressed in at- tempting to defend the policy of the Government and in the course of his speech appealed to the House to undertake during the war a reform by general agreement which would solve these problems. " Let us by all means use the time those of us who are not absolutely absorbed in the conduct of the war in those months to see if we cannot work out by general agreement some scheme under which, both as regards the electorate and the distribution of electoral power, a Parliament can be created at the end of the war capable and adequate for discharging these tasks and commanding the confidence of the country." l A little later in the debate Mr. Long, the author of the bill, pleaded with the members of the House not to find fault with the bill before them, but seriously to set about to find a solu- tion of the whole situation. In order to do this he made a definite suggestion of procedure. " I myself believe that if we agreed among ourselves .... to set up .... a rep- resentative Conference, not only of parties, but of groups, a Conference which would really represent opinion on these 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 85 : 1906. 128 [334 335] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT igi8 129 three subjects: electoral reform, revision of your electoral power when you have got it, and registration, I believe .... that such a Conference of earnest men, holding strong views, bitterly opposed to each other, if they were face to- face with these difficulties, when we are longing with a great longing to see something of a better prospect for our country in the future, would produce an agreed system for all three questions upon which the great mass of opinion of the people of this country could come together." 1 He further suggested that such a Conference begin its delibera- tion during the recess of Parliament. Conference on Electoral Reform This suggestion caused immediately a great deal of dis- cussion in political circles and was received on all sides with favor. It was looked upon as a possible solution for the vexing problems. Shortly afterwards Mr. Asquith re- quested the Speaker, Mr. James W. Lowther, to convene such a Conference and preside over its deliberations. This was a happy choice and augured much for the success of the undertaking. Invitations to members were issued early in October and the Conference held its first meeting on October 12, 1916. Great care was taken in selecting the personnel of the Conference so that all parties, groups, and shades of opinion would be properly represented. There were thirty-two miembers, five from the Lords, three Unionists and two Liberals, and twenty-seven from the House. Of the latter there were eleven Unionists, ten Liberals, three National- ists, and three representatives from the Labor party. From the standpoint of women's suffrage both sides were represented by staunch supporters. There were fifteen suf- fragists, eleven decided anti-suffragists, two so-called " wob- 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 85 : 1949-50. FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [336 biers," and four Irish members, who from) their records were quite incalculable. 1 There were representatives who believed in the radical doctrine of adult suffrage, of one man, one vote. They were counterbalanced by those who mis- trusted the masses and wanted the rights of property adequately guarded by the plural and university vote. According to the terms of reference, as stated by Mr. Bonar Law to the House on October 10, the Conference was, " To examine and, if possible, submit agreed resolu- tions on the following matters : " (a) Reform of the Franchise. " (b) Basis for the Redistribution of Seats. " (c) Reform of the system of the Registration of Electors. " (d) Method of elections and the manner in which the costs of elections should be borne." 2 At the request of Mr. Lloyd George, when he became Prime Minister in Decemjber, 1916, the Conference con- tinued its work. The final report was made to the Prime Minister on January 27, 1917. This report was a remark- able document, presenting a unanimity of recommendations which even under the stress of war could scarcely have been expected upon such highly controversial questions. In all there were thirty-seven resolutions and thirty-four of these were agreed to unanimously by the Conference. The reso- lutions covered all the points that were included in the terms of reference. They recommended that the qualifying period for registration be reduced to six months, that there should be revision twice a year, and that the cost of registra- tion should be borne by local and national governments. 3 1 The Nation, vol. xx, 1916, p. 66. f Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 86: 21. * Parliamentary Papers, 1917, Cd. 8463. 337] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT i 9 i8 131 In regard to franchise they recommended that only three qualifications be retained residence, business occupation, and university representation. A compromise was reached in regard to plural voting; an elector was to be entitled to one vote in respect of residence and another vote in another constituency in respect of either business occupation or university representation. On the question of redistribu- tion they recommended that the normal unit should be 70,000 population with exceptions for special cases. The principle of proportional representation and alternative vot- ing were also recommended for certain constituencies. Pro- visions were included whereby soldiers and sailors were to be placed upon the register and the principle of absent voting was approved. In regard to the most difficult part of the whole problem, that of women's suffrage, while not unanimous on this point, the Conference recommended that the parliamentary franchise be conferred upon all women who were on the local government register or who were wives of men who were on this register provided they had attained a certain age which was not agreed upon. Definite limitations were recommended for candidate's election ex- penses and the disqualifications because of poor relief were abolished. The resolutions of the Conference were accepted almost universally in political circles as making a great advance on the difficult road of franchise reform. The unanimity of the resolutions was a surprise even to those who had been the most sanguine about the possibilities of such procedure. The resolution in regard to women's suffrage revealed the fact that the war had softened bitter antagonisms and had created a more conciliatory attitude. Even The Times, which had been such an implacable opponent of women's suffrage, announced that this was one of the changes which was inherent in the circumstances of the war. 1 1 The Times, February i, 1917, p. 7. 1 32 FRANCHISE REFORM IN ENGLAND [338 Resolutions of Conference Presented to Commons After the report had been made public the Government decided that it ought to be presented to the House for dis- cussion in the form of a resolution. Accordingly on March 28,1917 Mr. Asquith, by whom the Conference had been instigated, moved, " That this House records its thanks to Mr. Speaker for his services in presiding over the Electoral Reform Conference, and is of the opinion that legislation should promptly be introduced on the lines of the resolutions reported from the Conference." * In intro- ducing this motion Mr. Asquith reviewed the situation in its relation to Parliament, the acts which had been passed to prolong it, the antiquated condition of the register, the futile attempts which had been made to constitute a new register, and the necessity which the war had produced of enabling the electors in national service to cast their votes. His most significant statement was the announcement of his support to the cause of women's suffrage. " I think that some years ago I ventured to use the expression, ' Let the women work out their own salvation.' Well sir, they have worked it out during the war." He then proceeded to eulogize the great service which they had rendered to the nation during the war and the necessity for their having a voice in the great problems of reconstruction. To his mind this could now be done with dignity, for there had not been for nearly three years a recurrence of " that detestable cam- paign which disfigured the annals of political agitation in this country and so no one can now contend that we are yielding to violence." The whole subject of franchise reform could now be approached in an entirely different atmosphere from that of the pre-war days and under much more auspicious circumstances than had ever prevailed be- 1 Parliamentary Debates, 5th series, vol. 92: 462-71. 339] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 2918 133 fore in the annals of English franchise legislation. The report was supported not only 'by the Government but also by Mr. Asquith, now the leader of the Opposition. That all the opponents of women's suffrage would not meekly acquiesce was very soon made clear by the speech of Mr. Arnold Ward. He warned the Governmlent that if this proposition were included, the opponents of women's suf- frage would fight it to the bitter end with all of their powers. 1 While there might fairly be a condition of give and take in regard to registration, redistribution, and plural voting, there could be no such attitude adopted towards the question' of women's suffrage. Mr. Salter, supported by fifty-two other Unionists, at- tempted to defeat the proposal by a motion which demanded that the Government should undertake immediately to place all soldiers and sailors on the register and make provisions for absent voting. Other than this they demanded that the whole attention of Parliament be devoted to the pros- ecution of the war. 2 They contended that this was an in- opportune time to begin consideration of this highly con- troversial subject. They were consistent in their attitude, for they said that if soldiers and sailors could not be placed on the register without raising the whole franchise ques- tion, then even 1 that should be postponed until the end of the war. This motion was defeated by an overwhelming majority. At the close o an enormous amount of litigation in order to establish franchise rights under the conflicting and complicated laws. The Conference decided to repeal this mass of laws entirely. The two chief qualifi- cations retained were residence and business premises. Ac- cording to the provisions of the bill any man twenty-one years of age was entitled to be registered as a parliamentary 343] REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT i 9 i8 137 elector, in respect of residence qualifications, if he occupied a residence. 1 The rating of premises, or payment of rates, or the value of the premises played no part in the qualifica- tions. This would enable a great many men to qualify for the franchise who could not do so under the existing laws. It would, for example, permit the registration of sons living at home with their parents. The one requirement placed upon the business premises qualification was that it be of 10 yearly value and t>e occupied for the purpose of business, profession, or trade. The old requirement of rating or payment of rates was eliminated, but business premises must be actually occupied in the capacity of owner- ship or tenancy. In order to have either the requisite residence or business premises qualifications an elector must have resided or oc- cupied premises for the whole of the qualifying period in a constituency, in the same parliamentary borough or county or in a contiguous parliamentary borough or county. This was a great extension of the principle of successive occupa- tion which previously had been possible only within one borough or one parliamentary division of a county. 2 The bill also provided that the county of London should be treated as one borough, which meant that a voter might move from one part of London to any other part or into any parliamentary borough or county adjoining London and be entitled to be registered as a successive occupation voter. After several minor amendments had been offered and either withdrawn or defeated Sir F. Banbury made an at- 1 Parliamentary Papers, 1917. Bill 49. 2 The law of successive occupation provided that a voter in a parliamentary borough or county could change his residence to an- other part of the borough or county, even though a different division of a parliamentary borough, ancal Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of Central and Local Government. By MILO ROY MALTBIE, Ph.D. Price, 2.00. 2. [24] German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. By JAMBS W. CROOK, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 8. [25] The Centralization of Administration In New York State. By JOHN ARCHIBALD FAIRLIB, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME X, 1898-99. 409 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [86] Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. By FRBD S. HALL, Ph.D. Price, $1.00 2. [27] 'Rhode Island and the Formation of Ihe Union. By FRANK GREENE BATES, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [38]. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws In the American Com-. monwealths. By CLEMENT MOORE LACBY SITES, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, cloth, 4.00; paper covers, $3.50. f!f 9] The Growth of Cities. By ADNA FBRRIN WBBKR Ph.D. VOLUME XH, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. y. [3O] History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. By WILLIAM MAXWKLL BURKE, Ph.D. Price, 1.00. 9, [31.] Colonial Immigration Laws. By EDWARD EMERSON PROPER, A.M. Price, 75 cents. 8. [32] History of Military Pension Legislation In the United States. By WILLIAM HENRY GLASSON, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 4. [33] History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. By CHARLES K. MBRRIAM, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [34] The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By ISIDOR LOBB, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 9. [35] Political Nativlsm In New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 3. [38] The Reconstruction of Georgia. By EDWIN C. WOOLLBY, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME XIV, 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. it. [87] Loyallsm In New York during the American Revolution. By ALEXANDER CLARBNCB FLICK, Ph.D. Price. (2.00, 2. [38] The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By ALLAN H. WILLBTT, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [39] The Eastern Question: A Study In Diplomacy. By STEPHEN P. H. DUGGAN. Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; Paper covers, $3.00. [4O] Crime In Its Relation to Social Progress. By ARTHUR CLEVELAND HALL, Ph.D. VOLUME XVI, 1902-1903. 547 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [41] The Past and Present of Commerce In Japan. By YBTARO KINOSITA, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [42] The Employment of Women In the Clothing Trade. By MABEL KURD WILLBT, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 8. [43] The Centralization of Administration In Ohio. By SAMUEL P. ORTH, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, cloth. $4.00. 1. [44] "Centralizing Tendencies In the Administration of Indiana. By WILLIAM A. RAWLES, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 2, [45] Principles of Justice In Taxation. By STEPHEN F. WBSTON, Ph.D. Price, fz.oo. VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [46] The Administration of Iowa. By HAROLD MARTIN BOWMAN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [47] Tnrgot and the Six Edicts. By ROBBRT P. SHEPHERD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [48] Hanover and Prussia, 1795-18O3. By GUY STANTON FORD, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 588 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [49] Joslah Tucker, Economist. By WALTKR ERNEST CLARK. Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [5OJ History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value In English Polit- ical Economy. By ALBERT C. WHITAKBR, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 8. [51] Trad* Unions and the Law la New York. By GEORGE GORHAM GROAT, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, cloth. $3.50. 1. [58] The Office of the Justice of the Peace In England. By CHARLES AUSTIN BEARD, Ph.D. Price, ( 1.50. 2, [58] A History of Military Government In Newly Acquired Territory of the United States. By DAVID V. THOMAS, Ph.D. Price, 2.00. VOLUME XXT, 1904. 746 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [54] "Treaties, their Making; and Enforcement. By SAMUBL B. CRANDALL, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [55] The Sociology of a New York City Block. By THOMAS JESSE JONES, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. 8. [56] Pre-Malthnslan Doctrines of Population. By CHAHLBS E. STANGELAND, Ph.D. Price, f2-5- VOLUME XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. [57] The Historical Development of the Poor Law of Connecticut. By EDWAKD W. CAFBN, Ph. D. VOLUME XXIII, 1905. 594 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [58] The Economics of Land Tenure In Georgia. By ENOCH MARVIN BANKS, Ph.D. Price, f i.oo. 3. [50] Mistake In Contract. A Study In Comparative Jurisprudence. By EDWIN C. MCK.BAG, Ph.D. Price, f i.oo. 3. [6O] Combination In the Mining Industry. By HKNRY R. MUSSBY, Ph.D. Price. $1.00. 4. [61] The English Craft Guilds and the Government. By STELLA KRAMER. Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [62] The Place of Magic In the Intellectual History of Europe. By LYNN THORNDIKB, Ph.D. Price, fi. go. 2. [63] The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodoslan Code. By WILLIAM K. BOYD, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 3. [64] *The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. By SBIJI G. HISHIDA, Ph.D. Price, $2.00, VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 1. [65] 'Municipal Control of Public Utilities. By O. L. POND, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 2. [66] The Budget In the American Commonwealths. By EUGENE E. AGGER, Ph.D. Price, $i. 50. 8. [67] The Finances of Cleveland. By CHARLES C. WILLIAMSON, Ph.D. Price, fa.oo. VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [68] Trade and Currency In Early Oregon. By JAMBS H. GILBERT, Ph.D. Price, $1.00, 5. [601 Luther's Table Talk. By PRESERVED SMITH, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 3. [7OJ The Tobacco Industry In the United States. By MEYER JACOBSTEIN, Ph.D. Price, $1 50. 4. [71] Social Democracy and Population. Py ALVAN A. TBNNEY, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. VOLUME XXVH, 1907. 578 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [78] The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. By NORRIS A. BRISCO, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 8. [78] The United States Steel Corporation. By ABRAHAM BBRGLUND, Ph.D. Price, $i 50. 3. [74] The Taxation of Corporations In Massachusetts. By HARRY G. FRIEDMAN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXVm. 1907. 564 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [75] DeWltt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System In New York. By HOWARD LEB McBAiN, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [76] The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. By ELMER I. MILLER, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [77] The Distribution of Ownership. By JOSEPH HARDING UNDERWOOD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. t'ly New England Towns. By An 7O~J New Hampshire as a Royal Province. 1. [78J EarlyNew England Towns. _ By ANNK BUSH MACL.BAR, Ph.D. Price. $1.50. By WILLIAM H. FRY, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50 ; Paper covers, $4.00. [8O] The Province of New Jersey, 1664-1738. By EDWIN P. TANNER, Ph.D. VOLUME XXXI, 190& 575 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [81] Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. By L. D. H. WELD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [88] Ohio before 185O. By ROBERT E. CHADDOCK, Ph.D. Price, Ji.jo. 8. [83] Consanguineous Marriages In the American Population. By GEORGE B. Louis ARNRR, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 4. [84] Adolphe Qnetelet as Statistician. By FRANK H. HANKINS, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, cloth, 4.50; paper covers, $4.00. 85] The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. By BERTHA HAVKN PUTNAM, Ph.D. VOLUME XXXHI, 1908-1909. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [86] Factory Legislation In Maine. By E. STAGG WHITIN.A.B. Price, Ji.cxx 9. [87 J 'Psychological Interpretations of Society. By MICHAEL M. DAVIS, Jr., Ph.D. Price, fe.oo. 3. [88 j *An Introduction to the Source^ relating to the Germanic Invasions. " By CARLTON J. H. HAYES, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXXIV, 1909. 628 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [89] Transportation and Industrial Development In the Middle West. By WILLIAM F. GBPHAKT, Ph.D. Price, fa.o*. t. [OO] Social Reform and the Reformation. ^ By JACOB SALWYM SCHAPIRO, Ph.D. Price, |i.s. S. [91] Responsibility for Crime. By PHILIP A. PARSONS, Ph.D. Price, $1.30. VOLUME XXXV. 1909. 568 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [93] The Conflict over the Judicial Powers In the United States to 187O. By CHARLES GROVB UAINES, Ph.D. Price, $ 1.50. *. [93] A Study of the Population of Manhattan vllle. By HOWARD BROWN WOOLSTON, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. S. [94] * Divorce: A Study In Social Causation. By JAMBS P. LICHTENBRRGBR, Ph.D. Price, $1.59. VOLUME XXXVI, 1910. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. f98] 'Reconstruction in Texas. By CHARLES WILLIAM RAMSDBLL, Ph.D. Price, $3.50. 9. [90] * The Transition In Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth. By CHARLES RAMSDBLL LINGLEY, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXXVH, 1910. 606 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [97] Standards of Reasonableness In Local Freight Discriminations. By JOHN MAURICE CLARK, Ph.D. Price, $1.15. 9. [98] L,egal Development In Colonial Massachusetts. By CHARLES J. HILKKY, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 8. [99] Social and Mental Traits of the Negro. By HOWARD W. ODUM, Ph.D. Prise, |t.o. VOLUME XXXVIII, 1910. 463 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [1OO] The Public Domain and Democracy. By ROBERT TUDOR HILL, Ph.D. Price, Jt.oo. 9. [1O1] Organism Ic Theories of the State. By FRANCIS \V. Coxut, Ph.D. Price, fi.jo. VOLUME XXXTX, 1910-1911. 651 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [ 1O2 ] The Making of the Balkan States. By WILLIAM SMITH MURRAY, Ph.D. Price, $1.5*. 8. [108] Political History of Nev< York State during the Period of the Civil War. By SIDNEY DAVID BKUMMBR, Ph. D. Price, 3.00. VOLUME XL, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [1O4] A Survey of Constitutional Development In China. By HAWKLINC L. YEN, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. 8. [105] Ohio Politics during the Civil War Period. By GRORGB H. PORTBR, Ph.D. Price. $1.75. 8. [1O6] The Territorial Basis of Government under the State Constitutions. By ALFRED ZANTZINGBK REBD, Ph.D. Price, f 1.7$. VOLUME XLI, 1911. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. [ 1O7] New Jersey as a Royal Province. By EDGAR JACOB FISHES, Ph. D. VOLUME XLII, 1911. 400pp. Price, cloth, $3.00; paper covers, $2.50. [1O8] Attitude of American Courts In Labor Cases. By GBORGB GOP.HAM GROAT, Ph.D. VOLUME XLIII, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. i . [1O9] 'Industrial Causes of Congestion of Population In New York City. By EDWARD EWING PRATT, Ph.D. Price, ft.oo. 1. [HOJ Education and the Mores. By F. STUART CBAPIN, Ph.D. Price, 75 cent*. 8. till] The British Consuls In the Confederacy. By MILLEDGE L. BONHAM, JR., Ph.D. Price, $2.0*. VOLUMES XLIV and XLV, 1911. 745 pp. Price for the two volumes, cloth, $6.00 ; paper covers, $5.00. (119 and 118] The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School. By CHEN HUAN-CHANO, Ph.D. VOLUME XLVT, 1911-1912. 623 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. -> 1. [114] The Rlcardlan Socialists. BY ESTHER LOWBNTHAL, Ph.D. Price, fi.o* 9. [115] Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vizier of 'Suleiman, the Magnificent. BY HBSTBR DONALDSON JBNKINS, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo tf. [116] 'Syndicalism In France. BY Louis LKVINB, Ph.D. Second edition, 1914. Price, f 1.50, 4. [117] A Hoosler Village. BY NEWELL LBBOY SIMS, Ph.D, Price. 11.50, VOLUME XL VII, 1912. 544 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [118] The Politics of Michigan, 1865-1878. BY HARRIETTS M. DILLA, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 9. [1 19] *The United States Beet Sugar Industry and the Tariff. BY ROT G. BLAKKY, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XL VIII, 1912. 493 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [ISO] Isldor of Seville. BY ERNEST BREHAUT, Ph. D. Price. J*.oo. 9. [121] Progress and Uniformity In Child-Labor Legislation. By WILLIAM FIELDING OGBURN, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. VOLUME XLIX, 1912. 592 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [188] British Radicalism 1791-1797. BY WALTER PHKLPS HALL. Price, fa.oo. ft. [188] A Comparative Study of the .Law of Corporations. BY ARTHUR K. KUHN, Ph.D. Price, |i.jo. S. [184] *The Negro at Work In New York City. BY GEORGE E. HAYNES. Ph.D. Price, $1.25. VOLUME L, 1911. 481 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [185] *The Spirit of Chinese Philanthropy. 'By YAI YUB Tsu, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 3. [186] "The Allen in China. BY Vi. KYUIN WELLINGTON Koo, Ph.D. Price.fa.jo. VOLUME LI, 1912. 4to. Atlas. Price: cloth, $1.50; paper covers, $1.00. 1. [187] The Sale of Liquor in the South. BY LBONARD 5. BLAKBY, Ph.D. VOLUME LII, 1912. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [188] 'Provincial and Local Taxation in Canada. BY SOLOMON VINBBBKC, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 51. [189] *The Distribution of Income. By FRANK HATCH STRBIGHTOPP, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. S. [13O] *The Finances of Vermont. By FREDERICK A. WOOD, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. VOLUME LHI, 1913. 789 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00. [ 13 1] The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida. By W. W. DAYIS, Ph. D. VOLUME LIV, 1913. 604pp. Price, cloth. $4.50. 1. [138] * Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States. By ARNOLD JOHNSON LIE~, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 9. [133] The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Legislation. By BLAINB FREE MOORB, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. ft. [184] "Indian Slavery In Colonial Times within the Present Limits of the United States. By ALMON WHEELER LAUBER, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. VOLUME LV, 1913. 665 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [135] *A Political History of the State of New Tork. By HOMER A. STBBBINS, Ph.D. Price, 4.00. 8. [136] *The Early Persecutions of the Christians. By LEON H. CANFIBLD, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME LVI, 1913. 406 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [137] Speculation on the New York Stock Exchange. 19O4-19O7. By ALGERNON ASHBURNBR OSBORNK. Price, $1.50. . 2. [188] The Policy of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly. By OSWALD WHITMAN KNAUTH, Ph.D. Pnce $a.oo. VOLUME LVII, 1914. 670pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [189] *The Civil Service of Great Britain. By ROBERT MOSES. Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 9. [14O] The Financial History of New York State. By DON C. SOWERS. Price, $2.50. VOLUME LVIII, 1914. 684 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00. [141] Reconstruction in North Carolina. By J. G. DB ROULHAC HAMILTON, Ph.D. VOLUME LIX, 1914. 625 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [148] The Development of Modern Turkey by means of its Press. By AHMED EMIN, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 8. [143] The System of Taxation in China, 1614-1911. By SHAO-KWAN CHBN, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 8. [144] The Currency Problem in China. By WEN PIN WEI, Ph.D. Price, Ji.as, 4. f 146] *Jewlsh Immigration to the United States. By SAMUSL JOSEPH, Ph.D. Price, VOLUME LX. 1914. 516pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. I 146] "Constantino the Great and Christianity. By CHRISTOPHER BUSH COLBMAN, Ph.D. Price, Jla.oo. 3. [147] The Establishment of Christianity and tlie Proscription of Pa- ganism. By MAUD ALINB HUTTMAN, Ph.D. Price, 2.00. VOLUME LXI. 1914. 496 pp. Price, cloth, $4 00. 1. [148] *The Railway Conductors: A Study in Organized Labor. By EDWIN CLYDE ROBBINS. Price, 161.50. 2. [149] *The Finances of the City of New York. By VIN-CH'U MA, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. VOLUME LXII. 1914. 414pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. [15O] The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstrnctlon. 39th Congress, 18661867. By BENJAMIN B. KBNDRICK, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. VOLUME LXIII. 1914. 561 pp. Price, cloth, $4-00. 1. [161] Emile Dnrkhelm's Contributions to Sociological Theory. By CHARLES ELMBR GEHLKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [153] The Nationalization of Railways in Japan. By TOSHIHARU WATARAI, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 3. [168] Population: A Study in Malthuslanism. By WARREN S. THOMPSON, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. VOLUME LXIV. 1915. 646 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [154] *Reconstruction in Georgia. By C. MILDRED THOMPSON, Ph.D. Price, 3.00. 2. [155] *The Review of American Colonial Legislation by the King in Council. By ELMER BEECHER RUSSELL, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. VOLUME LXV. 1915. 524pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [156] *The Sovereign Council of New France By RAYMOND Du Bois CAHALL, Ph.D. Price, $2.25, 2. [157] 'Scientific Management (2nd. ed. 1918). By HORACE B. DRURY, Ph.D. Price, $2.00 VOLUME LXVI. 1915. 655 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [158] *The Recognition Policy of the United States. By JULIUS GOEBBL, JR., Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 2. [159] Railway Problems In China. By CHIH Hsu, Ph.D. Price. $1.50. 3. [ 16O] The Boxer Rebellion. By PAUL H. CLEMENTS, Ph.D. Price, $2.0*. VOLUME LXVII. 1916. 538 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [161] *Russlan Sociology. By JULIUS F. HECKER, Ph.D. Price, fa.so. 3. [163] State Regulation of Railroads in the South. By MAXWELL FERGUSON, A. M., LL.B. Price, $1.75. VOLUME LXVIII. 1916. 518pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. [168] The Origins of the Islamic State. By PHILIP K. Him, Ph.D. Price, $4.00. VOLUME LXIX. 1916. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [164] Railway Monopoly and Rate Regulation. By ROBERT J. McFALL, Ph.D. Price, $2 oo. 2. [165] The Butter Industry In the United States. By EDWARD WIEST, Ph D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME LXX. 1916. 540 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. [166] Mohammedan Theories of Finance By NICOLAS P. AGHNIDBS, Ph.D. Price, 4.00. VOLUME LXXI. 1916. 476 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. li [167] The Commerce of Louisiana during the French Regime, 16991763. By N. M. MILLER SURREY, Ph.D. Price, $3.50. VOLUME LXXII. 1916. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. r !68] American Men of Letters: Their Nature and Nurture. By EDWIN LBAVITT CLARKE, Ph.D. Price, |i.so. 3. [169] The Tariff Problem In China. By CHIH CHV, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [17OJ The Marketing of Perishable Food Products. By A. B. Adams, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. f 1 1 GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL I 001 042 620 3 -UNIVERSITY OF CA R VERS DE L BRARY ^ 3 121000761 7879