NOVEMBER TO THE END OF 1908
MRS. BIRRELL AT CITY TEMPLE. MR. LLOYD GEORGE AT ALBERT HALL. RELEASE
OF MRS. PANKHURST, CHRISTABEL PANKHURST, AND MRS. LEIGH.
During the autumn whilst Mr. Birrell had been visiting his constituency
of North Bristol, Annie Kenney, the centre of whose flourishing West
of England organising district, was in that town, had prevailed upon
him to receive a women's deputation. In reply to this deputation Mr.
Birrell had said that the Government did not intend to carry the
Women's Enfranchisement Bill during that session; that many members
of the Cabinet were strongly opposed to the idea of giving the women
the vote on any terms; that, in his opinion, the matter was not ripe
for settlement, and also that he would not endanger his position in
the Cabinet by pressing the question forward. He added that he was
in favour of the enfranchisement of rate-paying widows and spinsters
on the Municipal basis, but that he disapproved of qualified married
women voting and that he would not support a measure to give adult
Suffrage to women. This last point was exceedingly interesting. It
clearly demonstrated the cynical character of the suggestion, made by
Mr. Lloyd George and others, that to give votes to women on the same
terms as men was not sufficiently democratic to be supported by a
Liberal Government, for here was a Liberal Cabinet Minister declaring
opposition to any wider measure.
On November 12th, Mr. Birrell spoke at the City Temple, the church of
Mr. R. J. Campbell, the well-known initiator of the so-called "New
Theology." It was well known that the Suffragettes were present to
heckle him, and the chairman tried to deter them by stating that Mr.
Birrell had promised to give his "influential support to any measure
giving a liberal extension of the franchise to women." The Suffragettes
considered that this meant absolutely nothing at all, and continued to
protest as earnestly as they could. The result was a terrible scene of
violence, in which large numbers of women were flung out of the church
and dragged down the steps. The W. S. P. U. afterwards wrote to Mr.
Birrell to ask what his statement had really meant. His answer, given
through his Secretary, was simply and solely that he had "nothing to
add to the reply which he gave recently to a deputation introduced by
Miss Kenney."
Meanwhile, though the militant tactics were being condemned as
vigorously as ever, sympathy for the militants and a desire for the
franchise were rapidly spreading amongst women of all shades of
opinion. The Women's Conservative and Unionist Franchise Society was
formed about this time, and the Margate and the Wallasey Women's
Liberal Associations passed Resolutions dissolving themselves until
women were enfranchised, whilst the Secretaries and Committee members
of other associations resigned their posts on the same ground.
At this point Mr. Lloyd George wrote to the executive of the Women's
Liberal Federation offering to speak for them on Women's Suffrage in
the Albert Hall. They agreed to his suggestion and it was announced
that he would make a Government pronouncement. On this ground the
organisers of the meeting approached the Committee of the W. S. P. U.,
asking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be heckled, but
we replied that unless we had an assurance that Mr. Lloyd George's
pronouncement was to contain a Government promise to act, we could not
comply with this request. As requests that we would alter our decision
continued to pour in, Mrs. Tuke, our Honorary Secretary, wrote to Mr.
Lloyd George on November 30th, stating that we would gladly ask our
women not to interrupt him if he could assure us that the Government
were really prepared to do something for the Suffrage Cause, and that,
if he wished, we would pledge ourselves not to divulge his reply until
after his speech had been delivered. Mr. George's only answer was a
curt note stating that anything that he had to say in regard to the
Government's attitude would be said in the course of his speech in the
Albert Hall.
There was no hint in the letter of any great Government pronouncement,
but indeed everyone knew, the leaders of the Liberal women themselves
knew, and in fact had admitted to us, that Mr. Lloyd George had
nothing of importance to say. His speech was merely intended to
pacify those women who were beginning to falter in their loyalty to
the Liberal Party and to take the wind as far as possible out of the
Suffragette sails. Mr. Lloyd George was as much responsible as any of
his colleagues for the present warfare. His own personal record in
regard to the women's movement was not a good one. Therefore there was
absolutely no reason for modifying, in his favour, the rule that all
Cabinet Ministers must be heckled. Indeed his coming forward at this
juncture to curry favour by offering empty platitudes was felt to be
in the nature of adding insult to injury. When, on Saturday, December
5th, the day of the Liberal Women's meeting arrived, the Albert Hall
was girt by an army of mounted police. There was a general feeling of
uneasy expectancy and everyone seemed suspicious of what his or her
neighbour might be going to do. Bands of men stewards, known by their
yellow badges, were massed in the corridors and stationed in groups
at the end of every row of seats. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact
that these men had been obviously engaged for the forcible ejection of
interrupters, in order to protect the promoters of the meeting from
subsequent charges of brutality, "Officials' Orders of the Day" were
prominently displayed, in which the stewards were counselled to "do
no violence to any person," and the members of the Women's Liberal
Federation were asked, whatever happened, to "act as though they were
soldiers, silent and steady under fire."
Lady M'Laren, who presided over the meeting, rose to speak with obvious
uneasiness, which was increased, when she suddenly realised that all
the women in the front row of the arena, who had suddenly removed
their cloaks, were clothed as second division prisoners in dresses of
green serge, blue and white check aprons and white caps, all stamped
with the broad arrow. For sometime, however, all was quiet and it was
not until Mr. Lloyd George had been speaking for some moments, and
was proceeding to give various reasons why women were entitled to the
franchise, that he was interrupted by a tall, graceful woman in one
of the boxes. She declared that all present were agreed as to the
justice of the cause and that a Government pledge to take action was
alone required. The speaker was Helen Ogston, B.Sc., of St. Andrew's
University, and the daughter of Professor Ogston of Aberdeen. Her
words were no sooner uttered than a man in the next box leapt over the
barrier and struck her a blow in the chest, whilst several stewards
sprang upon her from behind. She protested that she was prepared to
leave the hall at once, but the men did not heed her and continued
to pummel her in the most savage way. At this the audience were
astonished to see her draw a whip from under her cloak and strike at
one of her assailants. Immediately afterwards she was knocked down and
disappeared.[32]
Now the whole hall was in uproar. Mr. Lloyd George strove to continue,
weakly protesting that he was in favour of Women's Suffrage, but, "Then
why don't you do something?" and "Deeds not words! Deeds not words!"
came a clear bell-like cry. Again he went on to urge that he really was
in favour, but was met by, "Why don't you resign from a Cabinet that is
hostile to women?" "Our women are in prison." "You run with the hare
and hunt with hounds." Only one woman spoke at one time and each one
merely fired a short, sharp, pertinent interjection; but there were
many of them, and, more than that, the raising of each woman's voice
was the signal for a wild outburst of fury on the part of the stewards,
who sprang upon the interrupter, silenced her by a blow under the chin
or an impromptu gag and, after flinging her either to the ground or
across the seats, dragged her out head foremost, hitting her again and
again. Some members of the audience struck with fists and umbrellas at
the women who were being carried past. Others tried to protect them,
but the latter were always set upon by the officials and speedily
bundled out.
Even outside in the numerous passages that surround the circular hall
the ejectors, some of whom were heard to say that the affair was more
amusing to them than a night at the Music Hall, would not allow their
captives to escape and still continued to ill-treat them until they had
finally flung them down the steps and out of the building. At last Mr.
Lloyd George stopped--the scene was becoming too much even for him. He
declared that he would rather sit down than be the cause of so much
violence. "Yes, do sit down and stop it," a chorus of distressed voices
rose, but after a moment he went on again with the stale old reasons
why women should have the vote. "We have known those for forty years,"
"We want your message," still the women's voices called, and each
interruption meant an ejection. "We shall get peace presently by this
process of elimination," he said. "Yes, fling them ruthlessly out,"
his own words at Swansea were repeated, and, "You will never eliminate
the Suffragettes from practical politics." For more than an hour the
scene continued. Again and again Lady M'Laren intervened and secured
a few moments' peace for Mr. Lloyd George to make his statement and
again and again he himself promised to give the Government message but
failed to do so, floundering back instead into a maze of arguments for
and against the vote. "If Queen Elizabeth had been alive to-day," he
ventured once, but, "She would have been in Holloway" came the retort,
and then the protesting voices broke out afresh. Then at last, after a
flight of oratory on the excellence and the importance to women of the
measures already introduced by the Liberal Government, the declaration
came. It was nothing but Mr. Asquith's old worn-out promise to
introduce a Reform Bill and not to oppose a Women's Suffrage Amendment
to it on certain conditions. The women reminded the Chancellor that
the Prime Minister had relegated the introduction of the Reform Bill
to "the dim and speculative future," but he protested that it would be
introduced before the Parliament came to an end. He was asked how women
were to prove the "demand" for their enfranchisement which was one of
the conditions of the promise and his reply was, "as the men showed
their desire," but the women answered:--"Men burnt down buildings, they
shed blood," and, "the Government has ignored our demonstrations." He
was questioned as to the second condition that the Votes for Women
amendment must be drafted on "democratic lines," but though asked again
and again "What is democratic?" he vouchsafed no reply and at last the
cry, "Where is the message?" broke out once more and a great white
banner, with the inscription, "Be honest," was hung out from one of
the boxes.
Of course the W. S. P. U. was, as usual, much blamed for what had taken
place. The heckling of Mr. Lloyd George was declared to be both foolish
and wrong; nevertheless many newspapers protested strongly against
the behaviour of the stewards of the meeting. The Liberal _Manchester
Guardian_ said that the ejections were effected "with a promptness
that gave the chairman no opportunity for intervening," and in many
instances "with a brutality that was almost nauseating." The Special
Correspondent of the _Standard_ spoke of the "grossly brutal conduct"
of the stewards, declaring that "some of the worst acts of unnecessary
violence took place within ten yards of the chairman's table, and
therefore right under the eyes of Lady M'Laren and Mr. Lloyd George.
The men responsible for the acts were stewards wearing the official
yellow rosette. That I am prepared to swear to." At the same time the
_Manchester Guardian_, in its leading article, though it condemned our
action, admitted that Mr. Lloyd George's repetition of Mr. Asquith's
promise was entirely unsatisfactory from the Votes for Women point of
view. Many others took the same line, and the Conservative _Globe_
said, "We see very genuine grounds for the impatience displayed by the
Suffragettes at the Albert Hall. Mr. Lloyd George must have known that
the declaration he had to make would have infuriated any body of men."
But the matter did not end with newspaper discussions. We had realised
from the first time that we should be made to suffer in many ways.
Again and again attempts had been made to break up meetings addressed
both by Suffragettes and Suffragists, but the women were hardly ever
afforded the protection of the police and, as their meetings were
almost entirely officered by women stewards they were obliged to
rely upon their own powers of persuasion and magnetic force of will
to control their audiences. This the Suffragettes have always been
prepared to do, but it was not always done without difficulty.
Already, at a meeting in Birmingham, Christabel had been assaulted with
the bodies of dead mice and, on live mice being let loose at one of our
meetings, a well-known Glasgow daily paper had suggested that rats or
even ferrets might suitably be employed.
After Mr. Lloyd George's Albert Hall meeting, such outbreaks of
violence against us became for a time exceedingly frequent. At a
meeting which I addressed just then for a Women's Suffrage society in
Ipswich there was abundant evidence to prove that well-known Liberals
in the town had bought shilling tickets of admission for a number of
men whom they paid a further shilling each to create a disturbance and,
as soon as I rose to speak, I was assailed by shouts and yells, the
singing of a song especially composed and printed with this object,
which had been distributed broadcast throughout the town, the rattle of
tin cans and the ringing of bells. During my speech several free fights
took place in the hall. Walking sticks and other missiles were sent
flying through the air and an offensive smell of sulphuretted hydrogen
was let out. The women who had promoted the meeting, whilst anxious
that I should stand my ground, were in despair at the damage which they
saw was being done to the hall, but, when they sent for the police
to quell the disturbance the Chief Constable of the town declared that
he had no power to act. His statement sounded strangely to Suffragettes
who had seen the police always massed around the meetings of Cabinet
Ministers, and had also frequently seen them brought in to eject women
interrupters.
[Illustration: The Chelmsford By-Election]
A few days after the Albert Hall meeting Helen Ogston herself spoke
at Maidenhead, where a gang of men, some of them made up as guys and
dressed in women's clothes, waved whips at her and finally drove the
speakers from the platform. The only thing that the police could
suggest was that the women should fly.
At this time a by-election was in progress at Chelmsford and, in
organising our campaign there, we had at first to contend with great
disorder. On the opening night of the election the members of the
National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies were entirely swept
from their platform in the Market Square, whilst a mob of hooligans
surrounded the lorry from which we were speaking and dragged it down
a hill into the darkness away from the street lamps. Though, aided by
steadier sections of the audience, we still succeeded in maintaining a
semblance of order, as soon as we descended from the cart the rowdies
crushed and jostled us so unmercifully that had it not been for some
men who fought for us and who were seriously bruised in the struggle,
we should have been trampled under foot. We were at last dragged
for safety into the entrance hall of the Municipal buildings where
a banquet was being held. The head waiter, who stood at the door,
was exceedingly anxious to get rid both of us and the noisy crowd
that remained clamouring outside, and we were therefore taken by an
underground passage to the Police Court, and kept waiting there for an
hour.
This sort of thing did not continue long in Chelmsford, for, as has
invariably been the case, as soon as the Suffragettes became known to
the people, the hostility which was at first manifested towards them
entirely disappeared. Mrs. Drummond was the heroine of this election,
for the W. S. P. U. campaign was entirely organised by her. In the
illustration she is shown distributing leaflets to the farmers in the
Chelmsford Market Place at the close of her speech to them. The result
of the poll was a fall of nearly twenty per cent. in the Liberal vote,
and a piling-up of one hostile majority against them from 454 to 2,565,
which was generally acknowledged in the constituency to be largely due
to the Suffragettes.
The violence of the rowdies met with little rebuke from political
leader writers and under the heading, "Sparrows for Suffragettes," the
_Westminster Gazette_ stated, "Essex has just provided two amusing
Suffragist Incidents," and described in the same spirit the letting
loose of a flight of sparrows inside a hall where the women were
speaking and the breaking up of a Suffragist meeting by boys who had
rushed the speakers, and cast carbide on the wet roads.
Consider the action of a body of women who, in order to obtain a
share in the constitution, deliberately decide to attend the meetings
addressed by the members of a Government that has the power to grant
them what they desire but withholds it. Consider also that these women
are deprived by their sex of the principal constitutional means of
pressing their claim and that their action is taken at great personal
risk. Then contrast the action of these women with that of a crowd of
men who, absolutely careless of injuring either persons or property,
and merely because they imagine that their victims are unpopular or
opposed to those whom they believe to be their own political friends,
deliberately set out with the intention of breaking up the meetings
of women who are withholding no man's rights from him and who have no
power to give rights to anyone, but who are merely struggling to obtain
the franchise which their assailants themselves possess. Surely no
one with an unprejudiced mind could consider that there is a parallel
between the case of those particular women and those particular men.
Party politicians had before them frequent examples of the two cases
and they decided that there was no parallel. They decided that the
action of the men was excusable, but that the action of the women must
be condemned in the most emphatic terms and must be sternly repressed
at any cost.
[Illustration: The human letters dispatched by Miss Jessie Kenney to
Mr. Asquith at No. 10 Downing Street, Jan. 23, 1909]
A measure called the Public Meeting Bill providing that any person who
acted in a disorderly manner in order to prevent the transaction of
the business for which a meeting had been called together should be
rendered liable to a fine not exceeding £5 or to imprisonment for a
period not exceeding one month, was therefore laid before Parliament by
Lord Robert Cecil. As the slightest interjection or the most pertinent
question by a Suffragette had now become the signal for a scene of
disturbance, it was clearly apparent that they would not be able to
raise their voices at the meetings of Cabinet Ministers without
rendering themselves liable to the suggested penalties. Though the
Bill was introduced but a few days before the end of the Session, the
Government at once provided for it the facilities which had been denied
to that equally short measure to enfranchise the women of the country,
and it was quickly rushed through the two Houses and became law before
the end of the year.
Party feeling on the one hand, and public indifference on the other,
veiled for the time being the serious and revolutionary nature of this
measure and allowed it to be placed on the statute book with scarcely
a word of discussion or protest. Nevertheless it struck at one of
our most ancient and fundamental national customs. Describing the
ancient governmental assemblies of the Saxon peoples Tacitus explains
that though, as a rule, only the more distinguished members of the
community put forward new proposals, all had a right to be present
and the by-standers at once expressed their opinion in regard to all
suggestions. He says:
The eldest opens the proceedings, then each man speaks according as
distinguished by age, family, renown in war or eloquence. No one
commands, only the personal dignity residing in him exercises its
influence. No distinction of rank exists; the Assembly determines
and its determination is law. Proposals, when deemed acceptable, are
hailed with loud acclaim and clash of arms. A loud shout of dissent
rejects what appears to be unacceptable.
Our present system of Government is, after all, the direct descendant
of these ancient assemblies. Largely owing to the distinctions of class
which have sprung up and have grown more and more complex and at
the same time more deeply marked because of the constant struggling of
those who already possess advantages of property and of education to
add to these advantages a greater political power than their fellows
by restricting the rights of those who are poorer and weaker than
themselves many changes have been wrought. It has come about that our
modern Parliament is elected by only a section of the people; and
that almost the whole of the business transacted by Parliament is
carried on by a small Cabinet of persons nominated by one man, himself
pitch-forked into power by a possibly transient wave of popularity.
Moreover, our existing system of party Government renders this small
Cabinet almost all-powerful during its term of office and the strong
party prejudice, obtaining both amongst Private Members of Parliament
and the Press of the country, secures that the Cabinet shall remain
almost exempt from criticism, except by the followers of the opposing
party. This criticism loses in influence and value because, for party
purposes, it is directed almost without exception against every act
of the Cabinet, whether the act be in itself worthy or unworthy. The
section of the people who are entitled to vote and who elect the
majority that makes the power of the Cabinet possible may, it is true,
dismiss them at the next general election if they disapprove of the
way in which their stewardship has been fulfilled; but they cannot
insist upon an election when they will and they have no power to decide
that their representatives have done well in one respect and badly
in another. It is only possible either entirely to accept what the
representatives have done or to reject them altogether.
[Illustration: Procession to welcome Mrs. Pankhurst, Christabel and
Mrs. Leigh on their release from prison, December 19th, 1908]
There exists also the right of every section of the people to carry
resolutions embodying their opinion in regard to matters of Government,
which may either be published broadcast or presented in the form of
petitions for redress of grievances to those in power. But what usually
happens to resolutions and petitions put forward by those who have
no political power is aptly expressed in the words of Mr. Serjeant
Hullock, the Counsel who spoke for the Coercionist Government in one of
the cases arising out of the massacre of Peterloo, which took place in
1819, prior to the passing of the first reform Act. "If deliberation
had been their object," he said, "could they not have settled their
petition in a private room and then have sent it to the House of
Commons, where it would have been laid on the table and never heard
of again?" Nevertheless the old right of the by-standers, the right
of the whole people to express their opinion in regard to suggestions
put forward by powerful folk and to receive them either with shouts
of approval or equally loud cries of dissent still exists and it
exists--if it has not been altogether destroyed by the Public Meeting
Bill--not merely for men, but for women. This right is constantly
exercised when a member of the Government, and, to a lesser extent, a
private Member of Parliament appears before a public meeting of the
people to make proposals for fresh legislation and to give an account
of his stewardship in the past. When he comes forward thus, the people,
women as well as men, have the right to express assent or dissent with
what he has done or with what he has left undone, with what he proposes
and what he has omitted to propose. They have the right to question
him and to demand an answer, to heckle him during his speech if they
will, and if they will to cry out and refuse to let him speak until he
has dealt with the thing which they have at heart, and if they believe
that he has not dealt justly with that thing they have the right to
decide that he shall not be heard. How else can he know the mind of the
country? How else can those who are without the Parliamentary franchise
express their will? There is no other way and this right is one of
those upon which the people of these Islands have always insisted.
Those who have said that if this right be exercised the right of free
speech will be endangered do not realise what the right of free speech
is. The right of free speech is the right of everyone to speak publicly
and without penalty or restraint, of what seems important, and this old
right to question and to express assent and dissent is included in it.
It is the only refuge of those who have no political power. The right
of members of the Government to speak freely can never be endangered,
for they have Parliament to speak from, the police and military at
their beck and call to protect them and enforce their wishes, and the
Press of the country all waiting to note down their words and publish
them broadcast throughout the land. The right of poor and voteless
people to be heard has been endangered by this Bill and so long as it
remains on the Statute Book it is a standing menace to our ancient
popular liberties.
Happily, up to now, the Bill has been practically a dead letter, but
none can be sure that an instrument of coercion which exists will not
be put into force. Had the movement for Women's Enfranchisement been a
movement solely of poor women with others dependent upon them, as might
have been the case, the new Bill might have proved a serious menace to
the movement, but, as it happened, there was fortunately no lack of
women who were able and willing to risk imprisonment. Therefore this
Bill could make no difference to us.
Nevertheless, though our members might not have left a crowd of
starving children behind them, we well knew that their going to prison
entailed many sacrifices and we always waited impatiently for their
release and welcomed them back amongst us with the greatest joy. During
the summer and autumn bands of women in white dresses had flocked
to the gaol gates, had unhorsed the carriages provided to carry the
prisoners to breakfast, and with purple, white and green ribbons had
drawn them in triumph through the streets. With Scotch tartans and
Scotch heather the Scotchwomen had been welcomed; four Irish colleens
and an Irish piper and a jaunting car met Mrs. Tanner, an Irish woman,
and women in prison dress marched from the station with Mrs. Baines on
her return to London. When Mrs. Pankhurst, Mrs. Leigh and Christabel
were released, earlier than had been expected, on December 19th, women
on white horses drew their carriage, and behind and before there
marched long lines of W. S. P. U. members wearing white jerseys, purple
skirts, and gaiters, green caps, and "votes for women" regalia.
In the evening a meeting of welcome was held in Queen's Hall, and as
Mrs. Pankhurst, Christabel, and Mrs. Leigh appeared all the organisers
of the Union in their white dresses lined up and saluted them with
tricolour flags, whilst the great audience of women sprang to their
feet and cheered and waved and cheered again as few but Suffragette
audiences can. Then Annie Kenney stepped forward holding in her hand a
purple, white and green silk standard with an aluminum staff, bearing a
gilt shield inscribed with the great dates in Christabel's career.
When Christabel spoke she recalled the many thousands of Women's
Suffrage meetings that had been held in this country and the work of
the pioneers who had begun the agitation more than forty years before.
These women had laboured well and devotedly, yet they had not succeeded
in gaining for women the Parliamentary vote. She believed the reason
for this to be that they had relied too much upon the justice of their
cause and not enough upon their strong right arm, for an idea had only
life and power in it when it was backed up by deeds. What had been
wanted was action and it was for this reason that the militant tactics
had achieved so much already and would in the end succeed. The old
methods of asking for the vote had proved futile, and not only were
they futile, but they were humiliating and unworthy of women. "I say to
you," she said, "that any woman here who is content to appeal for the
vote instead of demanding and fighting for it is dishonouring herself."
The women who came into the militant movement did not fear suffering
and sacrifice; they felt, not that they gave up anything for the
movement, but that they gained everything by it. "Why," she cried, "the
women of this Union are the happiest people in the world. We have the
glorious pride of being made an instrument of those great forces that
are working towards progress and liberty."
That note was struck again and again, and it was upon that note that
the whole meeting rested. Loyalty, enthusiasm, courage, belief in a
great cause, the joy of fighting for it, these things filled the air.
No one could fail to be impressed by them. When Mrs. Pankhurst rose to
speak someone stepped forward and pressed into her hand a replica of
a medal struck to commemorate the fall of the Paris Bastille in the
French Revolution, because she had been born on the anniversary of that
day. She was weakened and worn by her imprisonment, but her speech,
brief and somewhat hesitating as it was, contained a pronouncement
heralding important events, for it foreshadowed the hardest and
bitterest struggle to secure the rights of Political Offenders to
British women political prisoners that had yet been fought.
Two further events must be chronicled before closing the story of the
year 1908. The first is the fight of the Scottish women graduates for
the recognition of their claim to vote under the Scottish University
Franchise which they carried right through to the House of Lords.
Though they failed to establish their claim, they yet brought to light
many valuable new facts in regard to the rights and privileges of their
countrywomen in ancient times. One of their contentions was that the
question as to whether they might vote should be decided according to
the actual wording of the University Franchise Act and not according
to the known, or supposed, intentions of Parliament, for that is the
rule which the British Courts have agreed to be always the just
and proper one to adopt. There was nothing in the words of the Act
to prevent women graduates from voting on equal terms with men, and
even if it were held that this had happened because when the Act was
passed the legislature had not foreseen the possibility of there ever
being women graduates, the right course to pursue (because it was the
accepted course when such questions in regard to Acts of Parliament
arose) was for the women to be allowed to vote until Parliament, if
it chose to do so, should carry an amending statute. The graduates
pointed out that this had been done in the case of the first woman who
had graduated in medicine, in the Netherlands where, as in England,
graduation carried with it the right to vote. This lady had claimed her
right and not being allowed to exercise it had taken her case to the
Courts. For technical reasons the case had been postponed and during
the postponement the Legislature had brought in a repealing enactment
to prevent women graduates voting and had succeeded in carrying it.
The reason for the refusal of the English authorities to take this
course is clearly apparent, for it would have been difficult indeed for
our Parliament to carry such a repealing measure in the face of the
tremendous Suffragette and Suffragist agitation.
The second of these two important happenings and perhaps the most
auspicious one of the whole year, was the granting of votes to women in
Victoria where, after struggling for many years, the Suffragists had at
length succeeded in inducing their Government to take the matter up and
had secured their enfranchisement on November 18th, 1908.
FOOTNOTES:
[32] Miss Ogston acted upon her own initiative in using the dog whip,
and her intention was not known to the committee of the W. S. P. U. who
felt, however, that they could not condemn her for seeking to protect
herself. She employed the whip as a protest, not against ejection, but
against the unnecessary violence to which she herself and other women
had been subjected.