OCTOBER, 1909, TO JANUARY, 1910
ARREST OF LADY CONSTANCE LYTTON AND OTHERS AT NEWCASTLE. SUFFRAGETTES
ATTACKED AT ABERNETHY. HOSE PIPE PLAYED ON MISS DAVISON IN STRANGEWAYS
GAOL, MANCHESTER. MR. ASQUITH AT THE ALBERT HALL.
Whilst our comrades were thus enduring agonies in prison, protest
meetings were being held in all parts of the country. The _Daily News_
said of the people in our movement: "They are no longer men and women;
they are a whirlwind."
During the first three days of forcible feeding £1,200 was collected.
At a great demonstration in the Albert Hall on October 7th, a further
£2,300 was subscribed, and the £50,000 campaign fund being complete, a
fund of £100,000 was started. At this meeting a procession of women who
had already gone through the hunger strike marched up to the platform
carrying the purple, white and green tricoloured flags of the Union,
and here Mrs. Pankhurst, who was on the eve of her departure for
America, decorated them with medals in recognition of their services to
the cause. The scene was one of the most tremendous enthusiasm; it was
one which none of those present will ever forget.
On October 9th a great political pageant was held in Edinburgh, when
a procession of women, led by Scotch pipers and Mrs. Drummond in her
general's uniform, astride a prancing charger, marched through the
streets, accompanied by a number of tableaux representing the figures
of heroic women famous in Scottish history.
On October 4th, Lord Morley, as Chancellor of the Victoria University,
visited Manchester to open the University's new chemical laboratory.
Deeply moved by the sufferings of Mrs. Leigh and her comrades in Winson
Green Gaol, Miss Rona Robinson, M.Sc., and Miss Dora Marsden, B.A.,
both graduates of the University, and the former a subscriber also to
the new laboratory, attended in their academic robes, and, with Miss
Mary Gawthorpe, advanced down the central aisle of the Whitworth Hall
of the University, just as Lord Morley was about to speak. Each one
raising a hand in appeal, they said in concert: "My Lord, our women are
in prison."
The rowdiness of the young men students of our British universities is
time-honoured; their almost deafening shouts and yells and practical
jokes, always in evidence at functions such as this, are invariably
received with amused tolerance by the authorities. Mr. Asquith
himself, when addressing the students of the University of which he
is Chancellor, did not disdain to wait with a smile until their play
was done before he could address them. Nevertheless the earnest,
quietly-spoken words of these three young women were scarcely uttered
when they were pounced upon by a number of strange men, who dragged
them out of the Hall, and as soon as they were lost to sight by the
audience, fell to striking, pummelling, and pinching them, as they
pushed them into the street. The passers-by rushed up to know what had
happened, and at once the police ordered the three women to move on.
They replied that they would not leave until their graduates' caps and
other belongings, which had been torn from them, were restored, and
until the names of the men who had ejected them were given. Thereupon,
without further argument, the police seized them and dragged them to
the police station, where they were accused of disorderly conduct and
abusive language, in Oxford Street. These ridiculous charges could not
be substantiated and were afterwards withdrawn by the Chief Constable
of Manchester and the Vice Chancellor of the University.
Such women as Mrs. Baines and Mrs. Leigh, both capable of the fieriest
zeal and the most reckless heroism, spurred on by stern first-hand
knowledge of the crushing handicaps with which the woman wage-earner
has to contend, and the terrible disabilities which are rivetted upon
her, had found it not difficult to become rebels. The torture of women
in prison was now making it easy for gentler and happier spirits to
cast aside also the mere going on deputations and asking of questions
and, whilst doing hurt to none, yet by symbolic acts to shadow forth
the violence that coercion always breeds.
On October 9th Mr. Lloyd George was to speak at Newcastle and the town
was prepared as though for a revolution. Police and detectives were to
be seen in hundreds and great barriers were erected across the streets.
The night before the meeting twelve women met quietly together to lay
their plans for opposing these tremendous forces. Amongst them was
Lady Constance Lytton, who had already served one imprisonment for
the cause in the previous February, and who, as daughter and sister
of an English peer, wished to place herself side by side with Mrs.
Leigh, the working woman who was being tortured in Birmingham,--to do
what she had done, prepared to suffer the same penalty. Mrs. J. E. M.
Brailsford, who had joined the Women's Social & Political Union but a
few weeks before, was another who had come forward to bear her share
in this fight. (It was Mrs. Brailsford's husband who with Mr. Nevinson
had recently thrown up his post as leader writer to the _Daily News_,
because of his sympathy with the Suffragettes). Amongst these women
were also two hospital nurses, whilst two of the others, Miss Kathleen
Brown and Miss Dorothy Shallard, had already won their way out of
prison through the hunger strike.
Next night, whilst vast throngs of people lined the streets and the
police were massed in their thousands to guard from them the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, "the son of the people," as he called himself, the
twelve women quietly proceeded to do their deeds. It was rumoured that
Mr. Lloyd George was to stay with Sir Walter Runciman, and, seeing
the latter gentleman's motor car driving through the streets, Lady
Constance Lytton threw a stone at it, carefully aiming at the radiator
in order that, without injuring anyone, she might strike the car.
Miss Dorothy Pethick and Miss Kitty Marion entered the General Post
Office and, having carefully selected a window in the neighbourhood of
which there was no one to be hurt, they went out and cast their stones
through it with a cry of "Votes for Women." A number of other women
were also arrested for similar acts. Mrs. Brailsford walked quietly
up to one of the police barriers and stood resting an innocent-looking
bouquet of chrysanthemums upon it. Suddenly the flowers fell to the
ground disclosing an axe which she raised and let fall with one dull
thud on the wooden bar. It was a symbolic act of revolution, and, like
her comrades, she was dragged away by the police. By direct order of
the Home Office bail was refused and eight of the Suffragettes were
kept in the police court cells from Saturday until Monday, without an
opportunity of undressing, without a mattress, and with nothing but a
rug in which to wrap themselves at night.
Whilst the women who had thus been lodged in prison had been making
their protest outside Mr. Lloyd George's meeting, there were men who
were speaking for them within. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
running through the list of taxes in the Budget, a man complained that
"there was no tax on stomach pumps." The whole house rose at that and
the man was violently ejected. Many others followed his example. Mr.
Lloyd George taunted them by saying: "_There are many ways of earning
a living, and I think this is the most objectionable of them!_" and by
asking: "Are there any more of _these hirelings_?" Evidently he thought
that there were no men disinterested enough to support the cause of
women unless they received pay for it.[42]
On Monday, whilst the other women received sentences varying from
fourteen days to one month's hard labour, Lady Constance Lytton and
Mrs. Brailsford were ordered to be bound over to be of good behaviour,
and on refusing were sent to prison in the second division for one
month. The authorities were evidently very loath to convict these two
ladies, one of them because of her rank, and the other because of her
own and her husband's association with the Liberal party, but both
were determined to stand by their comrades and steadfastly refused to
express any regret for what they had done.
Their hope that their courageous action might save Mrs. Leigh and
the other Birmingham prisoners from further suffering proved to be
vain, and on Wednesday, October 13th, Lady Constance Lytton and Mrs.
Brailsford, both of whom had refused food, were released after having
been imprisoned for no more than two and a half days. Mr. Gladstone
asserted that in deciding to release them, he had not been in any way
influenced by regard for their position, but that they had been turned
out of prison on purely medical grounds. It was indeed true that Lady
Constance was exceedingly fragile and delicate and that she suffered
from a slight heart affection, but Mrs. Brailsford protested that she
herself was perfectly well and strong.
The eight other women were all forcibly fed and all but two were
retained in prison till the end of their sentence. In most cases the
nasal tube was used; it always caused headache and sickness. The
nostrils soon became terribly inflamed and every one of the women lost
weight and suffered from great and growing weakness.
On Saturday, October 16th, Mr. Winston Churchill was to speak at an
open-air gathering at Abernethy, some sixteen miles from Dundee.
The W. S. P. U. had no intention of heckling him or creating any
disturbance, for after much pressing and a lengthy correspondence he
had agreed to fulfil a promise made to the Women's Freedom League in
the previous January to receive a Woman's Suffrage deputation on the
following Monday. Nevertheless the occasion was thought a suitable
one for distributing Suffrage literature and for holding a meeting
somewhere in the neighbourhood. Adela Pankhurst, Mrs. Archdale, the
daughter of Russell, the founder of the great Liberal newspaper,
"The Scotsman," Mrs. Frank Corbett, the sister-in-law of a Member of
Parliament, and Miss C. Jolly accordingly decided to motor over there.
They started off on a crisp bright autumn day, the clouds high, the sun
shining and the trees all turning gold, and the little frost sparkles
gleaming on the good hard road. Everything began auspiciously but
before long they were held up by a punctured tire. Owing to this delay
they lost the opportunity of giving out leaflets to the people as they
arrived, for the audience had already entered the big tent where the
speaking was to take place when the Suffragettes drove up. Standing in
the road were some thirty or forty men, all wearing the yellow rosettes
of official Liberal stewards, and as the car slowed down, they rushed
furiously towards it, shouting and tearing up sods from the road and
pelting the women with them. One man pulled out a knife and began to
cut the tires, whilst the others feverishly pulled the loose pieces off
with their fingers. The Suffragettes tried to quiet them with a few
words of explanation, but their only reply was to pull the hood of the
motor over the women's heads and then to beat it and batter it until
it was broken in several places. Then they tore at the women's clothes
and tried to pull them out of the car, whilst the son of the gentleman
in whose grounds the meeting was being held then drove up in another
motor and threw a shower of pepper in the women's eyes. The shouts of
the men reached the tent where Mr. Churchill was speaking, and numbers
of people flocked out and watched the scene from over the hedge, but
only two gentlemen had the courage to come to the aid of the women,
and their efforts availed little against the large band of stewards.
At last, fearing that his motor would be entirely wrecked, the driver
put on full speed and drove away. The only excuse for the stewards who
took part in this extraordinary occurrence is that many of them were
intoxicated.
On Monday, as he had promised, Mr. Churchill received the deputation
from the Women's Freedom League. He then entirely departed from what
he had said during the elections both in Manchester and at Dundee
itself. In Manchester, when asked what he would do to help to secure
the enfranchisement of women he had said: "I will try my best as and
when occasion offers." He had added that the women Suffragists had "now
got behind them a great popular demand," and that their movement was
assuming "the same character as Franchise movements have previously
assumed." In Dundee he had said that Women's Suffrage would be "a real
practical issue" at the next general election and that he thought that
the next Parliament "ought to see" the gratification of the women's
claim. Now that no election was in prospect he said: "Looking back
over the last four years I am bound to say I think your cause has
marched backwards." He further said that the mass of people still
remained to be converted and that, so far as he could see, women's
enfranchisement would not "figure either in the programme of any
great political party" or "in the election address of any prominent
man," and that, until militant tactics were discontinued, he himself
would render no assistance to the cause. A more flagrant example of
political dishonesty than that which these conflicting statements
of Mr. Churchill's presented, it would be difficult to find and not
merely the Suffragettes but the people of Dundee freely expressed their
disapproval.
On Tuesday, Mr. Churchill was to speak in the Kinnaird Hall, and huge
crowds then filled the streets and in spite of the tremendous force of
police the barricades were stormed. Led by Mrs. Corbett, Miss Joachim,
and Mrs. Archdale, they shouted "Votes for Women," and rushed again and
again at the doors of the Hall. The three women who led the crowds were
arrested but the storm still went on.
Adela Pankhurst and Miss C. Jolly, who had lain concealed there since
the previous Sunday, had raised the cry, "Votes for Women," in a little
dark room, the windows of which overlooked the large hall. After a
tussle with the police and stewards, which lasted three quarters of an
hour, they were arrested and with the three who had been taken in the
street, were eventually sent to prison for ten days. They immediately
commenced the hunger strike, and were set free on Sunday, 24th October,
after having gone without food for five and a half days. Whilst they
were in prison, huge crowds came to the gates every night to cheer
them, and on the next night after their release the men of Dundee
organised a meeting of protest, in the Kinnaird Hall.
Meanwhile, four Suffragettes were suffering the torture of forcible
feeding in Strangeways Gaol, Manchester. They had been arrested in
connection with a meeting held by Mr. Runciman at Radcliffe, and
sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, on October
21st. They had gone into prison on the Thursday, and had begun the
hunger strike at once, and on Friday the doctors and wardresses came to
feed them by force. Miss Emily Wilding Davison urged that the operation
was illegal, but she was seized and forced down on her bed. "The scene
which followed," she says, "will haunt me with its horror all my life
and is almost indescribable." Each time it happened she felt she could
not possibly live through it again. On Monday a wardress put her into
an empty cell next door to her own, and there she found that instead of
one plank bed there were two. She saw in a flash a way to escape the
torture. She hastily pulled down the two bed boards, and laid them end
to end upon the floor, one touching the door, the other the opposite
wall, and, as the door opened inwards, she thus hoped to prevent anyone
entering. A space of a foot or more, however, remained, but she jammed
in her stool, her shoes, and her hairbrush, and sat down holding this
wedge firm. Soon the wardress returned, unlocked the door, and pushed
it sharply, but it would not move. Looking through the spy-hole she
discovered the reason and called, "Open the door," but the prisoner
would not budge. After some threats and coaxing the window of her
cell was broken, the nozzle of a hose-pipe was poked through, and the
water was turned full upon her. She clung to the bedboards with all
her strength gasping for breath, until a voice called out quickly,
"Stop, no more, no more." She sat there drenched and shivering, still
crouching on the bedboards, the water six inches deep around her. After
a time they decided to take the heavy iron door off its hinges, and,
when this was done, a warder rushed in and seized her, saying, as he
did so, "You ought to be horsewhipped for this." Now her clothes were
torn off, she was wrapped in blankets, put into an invalid's chair, and
rushed off to the hospital, there to be plunged into a hot bath and
rubbed down, and then, still gasping and shivering miserably, she was
put into bed between blankets with a hot bottle. At 6 P. M. on Thursday
she was released.
Meanwhile, the whole country had heard of the incident and an outcry
had been raised. A correspondent wrote that he had seen a hose-pipe
played on drunken stokers at sea. They were Norwegian stokers, the
officer would not have dared to do it had they been English, but
the passengers had intervened at what they felt to be revolting and
unjustifiable brutality. The thought of turning that fearful force of
ice-cold water upon a woman already weak from several days of fasting,
was horrible indeed to anyone who realised what it meant.
Mr. Gladstone himself admitted that the Visiting Committee who had
ordered it were guilty of a grave error of judgment and ordered the
discharge of Miss Davison; but later on he addressed a letter to
the officials of Strangeways Gaol through the Prison Commissioners
expressing his appreciation of the way in which the medical officers
had carried out their duties and commending "the efficiency of the
prison service, the carefulness and good sense shown by the staff," and
"the tact, care, humanity and firmness" with which the problem of the
Suffragette imprisonments had been "handled by all concerned."
The other Manchester prisoners were obliged to complete their
sentences, being forcibly fed during the whole time.
At this point the Government had an opportunity of learning the view of
the electorate as to their treatment of the women, for a by-election
was now taking place in Bermondsey and the Suffragettes were, as
usual, actively opposing the Government candidate. In order that every
elector might understand as far as possible what forcible feeding
really meant, a pictorial poster showing the operation was displayed
throughout the constituency and models representing forcible feeding
were shown at the W. S. P. U. committee rooms. A manifesto against the
Government was also issued by nine representative men, including Mr.
Brailsford, Mr. Nevinson and Dr. Hugh Fenton, which urged the electors
"in the name of chivalry and humanity as well as in the interests of
true Liberalism to see to it that whatever else may happen at this
particular election the Government candidate is left at the bottom
of the poll." The Suffragettes worked, if possible, more vigorously
than ever, and after the first three days of their campaign, Liberal
workers came to them in despair, saying: "Why have you come down to
boss our election?" The Suffragettes never go to Liberal meetings at
election times, but the Liberal speakers were constantly being heckled
by the men and women of Bermondsey as to the forcible feeding of the
Suffragettes. The Suffragettes themselves were greeted with cheers and
words of encouragement wherever they went. "All the policemen in this
constituency are going to vote for you," one of the constables said,
and others testified that they preferred to keep order at the women's
meetings than at any other because "they talked sense." In the result
the Liberal candidate was defeated and the Liberal poll was reduced by
more than 1,400 votes. The figures were:
Mr. Dumfries, Unionist 4,278
Mr. Spencer Leigh, Hugh, Liberal 3,291
Dr. Salter, Socialist 1,435
_____
Unionist majority 987
The figures at the last election had been:
George J. Cooper, Liberal 4,775
H. J. Cockayne Cust, Conservative 3,016
_____
Liberal majority 1,759
On polling day an unlooked-for, and to the Women's Social and Political
Union, unwelcome incident occurred. The Women's Freedom League
endeavoured to render the election void, because they objected to any
election being held at which women might not vote. The W. S. P. U. were
against this, because their policy was to prove that the electors were
prepared to defeat the Government candidate in order to show their
belief in Votes for Women. The attempt of the Freedom League members
to render the election void was carried out in the following manner.
Two members of the League, Mrs. Chapin and Miss Allison Neilans, each
entered a separate polling booth with a glass test tube filled with a
solution of ink and photographic chemicals which had been carefully
prepared to destroy the ballot papers without any risk of injury to any
person who might happen to touch it. In each case the woman concerned
broke the test tube by striking it on top of the ballot box so that
the black liquid might fall into the slot. When this was done by Mrs.
Chapin a Mr. Thorley rushed forward, and some of the black liquid
splashed into his eye. In Miss Neilans' case a man stretched out his
hand and some of the liquid fell upon it. In both cases the men asked
if the stuff would burn, and were told it would do no harm if it were
washed off at once. Miss Neilans' own hands and gloves were soaked with
the fluid, but she suffered no harm. Only five papers were touched by
the fluid and none of these were indecipherable.
A great outcry was raised, however, for it was declared that Mr.
Thorley would be blind for life. For some time he went out wearing a
black shade over his eye, but when he was called upon unexpectedly
by some members of the Women's Freedom League, he was found to be
without the shade and his eye appeared perfectly normal. The cases
hung over for some time and eventually, on November 24th, Mrs. Chapin
was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for interfering with the
ballot box and four months for a common assault upon Mr. Thorley, the
sentences to run concurrently; whilst Miss Neilans was ordered three
months' imprisonment. After a time it leaked out that the slight injury
from which Mr. Thorley had suffered, had been caused, not by the liquid
which Mrs. Chapin had thrown, but by some ammonia which he had used to
counteract any after-effects. Two days after Miss Neilans' release Mrs.
Chapin was granted the King's Pardon.
On October 30th Mrs. Leigh was suddenly released from Birmingham Gaol,
in a very critical state, though two months out of the four to which
she had been sentenced still remained to run. She was at once removed
to a nursing home.
November 9th was Lord Mayor's Day, and, as usual, the Lord Mayor had
invited the Cabinet Ministers to a banquet in the Guild Hall. Knowing
this, Miss Alice Paul, an American citizen, and Miss Amelia Brown
disguised themselves as charwomen, and, carrying buckets and brushes,
entered the building with the other cleaners at nine o'clock in the
morning. There they hid themselves and waited until the evening, when
they took their stand in the gallery outside the Banqueting Hall. When
Mr. Asquith was about to speak, Miss Brown, having carefully selected
a pane of the stained glass window upon which there was no ornament,
and which she thought might be easily replaced, stooped down, took off
her shoe and smashed the chosen pane in order that her shout of "Votes
for Women" might be heard by those below. Miss Alice Paul also took up
the cry. Both women were arrested and afterwards sent to prison for
one month's hard labour on refusing to pay fines of £5 and damages of
£2 ten shillings each. They were both forcibly fed and as a result of
this Miss Brown was attacked with severe gastritis.
Three days later, on November 13th, Mr. Winston Churchill visited
Bristol to speak at the Colston Hall. Miss Theresa Garnet, the woman
who had been twice through the hunger strike, and whom the Home
Secretary had wrongfully accused of biting, resolved to humiliate Mr.
Churchill, both as a member of the Government which preferred rather to
imprison women than to enfranchise them and to torture them rather than
to extend towards them the ordinary privileges of political prisoners;
and also on his own account for his slippery and disingenuous
statements in regard to the Votes for Women question.
She therefore met the train by which he was arriving from London and
found him on the platform in the midst of a large force of detectives
who formed a semi-circle around him. She rushed straight forward, and
they either did not, or would not, see her coming, but the Cabinet
Minister saw her, he paled and stood there as though petrified, only
raising his arm to guard himself. She reached him and with a light
riding switch, struck at him three times, saying, "Take that in the
name of the insulted women of England." At that he grappled with her,
wrested the switch from her hand, and put it in his pocket. Then she
was seized and dragged away to prison.
She was charged with assaulting Mr. Churchill, but eventually this
charge was withdrawn (presumably because Mr. Churchill knew that he
would be subpœnaed as a witness) and, on being accused of having
disturbed the peace, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on
refusing to be bound over.
Meanwhile 30,000 men and women had turned out to help the Suffragettes
in their protest around the Colston Hall where Mr. Churchill was
speaking, and during the evening four women were arrested, and
afterwards punished with from two months' hard labour to fourteen days
in the second division, whilst several men who had spoken up for them
inside the Colston Hall were beaten unmercifully by the stewards.
Forcible feeding was resorted to in Bristol Prison also, and handcuffs
were used in some cases.
Meanwhile the supporters of the Liberal Government were adopting
militant tactics on their own account. What was called "A League
against the Lords" had been formed with the warmly expressed approval
of many of the Liberal leaders, and, though the leaders had kept in the
background, the members of the League had twice assembled in Parliament
Square to hoot the peers as they drove by in their carriages, and had
come into collision with the police.
At the same time the Liberal newspapers were openly commending the
efforts of gangs of men who were going from meeting to meeting held
by the Conservatives, and with shouts and violence were making it
impossible for their political opponents to speak. Columns were
devoted to describing the doings of what was called "The Voice" which
persistently heckled Tariff Reformers and supporters of the House of
Lords.
Mr. Winston Churchill was now arranging to hold a campaign of public
meetings in Lancashire, and the W.S.P.U. publicly and openly appealed
for funds to insure that protests and demonstrations should be made
in connection with all his meetings. Thousands of pounds were, on the
other hand, spent by the authorities to defeat the women's intentions.
In Preston, in addition to many other precautions, seventy men were
employed and £150 spent on barricading the windows and roof of the Hall
where Mr. Churchill was to speak, and at Southport £250 was laid out on
mounted police to protect the Empire Music Hall alone.
When the Southport meeting began Mr. Churchill looked ill at ease
and turned about sharply from time to time as though expecting an
interruption. But at last he seemed to gain confidence and was
proceeding briskly with his remarks, when, suddenly, there floated down
from the roof a soft voice, faint and reedy, and peering through one of
the great porthole-like openings in the slope of the ceiling, was seen
a strange little elfin form with wan childish face, broad brow and big
grey eyes, looking like nothing real or earthly but a dream waif. But
for the weary paleness of her, she might have been one of those dainty
little child angels the old Italian painters loved to show peeping down
from the tops of high clouds or nestling amongst the details of their
stately architecture. It was Dora Marsden who with two other women had
lain concealed on the roof since two o'clock in the small hours of the
previous morning. So unexpected and pathetic was this little figure
that leant further forward to repeat her message that the audience
could not forbear to cheer her. They stood up, waving their hats and
programmes, "looking delighted," as the loftily placed intruder herself
observed. Mrs. Churchill smiled also and waved her hand and even Mr.
Churchill, though this was probably because of his wife's presence, and
of the general feeling of the audience, himself looked pleasantly up
and said, "If some stewards will fetch those ladies after my speech is
concluded, I shall be glad to answer any questions they may put to me."
But the stewards, who by this time had found the women, were not
disposed to bring them into the hall. A hand was thrust over Dora
Marsden's mouth and she and the others were roughly pulled back from
their coign of vantage, pushed through a window, and sent rolling down
the steep sloping roof. "Stop that, you fools," someone cried out,
"you will all fall over the edge," but one of the stewards answered,
"I do not care what happens." Fortunately two of the Suffragettes were
caught in their perilous descent by the edge of a water trough whilst
a policeman seized Dora Marsden by the ankle, telling her, "If I had
not caught your foot, you would have gone to glory." Once safely on the
ground the women were placed under arrest, but the case against them
was eventually dismissed.
At Preston, Suffragettes dressed in shawls and clogs sallied forth at
night and pasted forcible feeding posters on the street pillar boxes,
the prison and other public buildings and the windows and doors of the
Liberal Club, as a welcome to Mr. Churchill, and in connection with
turbulent scenes which occurred whilst his meeting was in progress,
four women were arrested. At every other town he visited the same kind
of thing occurred. At Waterloo, there was one arrest, at Liverpool
there were two, and one at Bolton and one at Crewe.
Meanwhile Mr. Harcourt had held a series of meetings in the Rossendale
Valley. On December 1st the door and windows of the house in which
he was staying were found to have been covered during the night with
forcible feeding posters. The next evening three men were set to watch
with large hose-pipes attached to the main, but somehow or other the
connection was mysteriously cut and the windows were broken without
their being aware of it by some person or persons unknown. Two women
were arrested in connection with disturbances on the following Monday,
and were sent to prison for one month and fourteen days respectively.
They both adopted the hunger strike, and were both forcibly fed. Two
women were arrested outside Sir Edward Grey's meeting at Leith on
December 4th, 1909.
A general election was now announced and on December 10th Mr. Asquith
was to speak at a great meeting in the Albert Hall and whilst
the authorities were making every attempt to keep them out, the
Suffragettes were, of course, making every attempt to get into the
building. Some of them did succeed in concealing themselves inside, but
were discovered. Jessie Kenney, who disguised herself as a telegraph
boy and tried to get in while the meeting was in progress, was also
detected and turned back, but three men sympathisers protested during
the meeting. To these Mr. Asquith replied, "Nearly two years ago I
declared on behalf of the present Government that in the event of our
bringing in a Reform Bill we should make the question of Suffrage for
Women an open one for the House of Commons to decide. My declaration
survives the General Election and this Cause, so far as the Government
is concerned, shall be no worse off in the new Parliament than it would
have been in the old." Thus Mr. Asquith was cheerfully preparing for
another general election without one word of regret or apology to those
women who had been misled by his promise to introduce the Reform Bill
before Parliament came to an end. That was almost the last of the old
false promise.
Meanwhile Charlotte Marsh, who had gone into Winson Green Gaol with the
first batch of prisoners to be forcibly fed, was still being detained
there, whilst Mrs. Leigh and all the rest had been released. Those
who went to visit her once at the expiration of each month were only
allowed to look at her through a small square of perforated zinc.
They could neither see her clearly nor hear distinctly what she said.
Nevertheless they gathered that she was suffering greatly. Our hearts
ached for that noble girl. Often there came before our eyes the picture
of the tall, straight figure that had carried the colours of our Union
before us in so many gay processions. We saw the fair, fresh face with
its delicate regular Saxon features, those masses of bright golden
hair, the head so proudly held, and the faint flicker of a shy smile
that always came when one spoke to her; we heard the boyish ring in
her voice, and realised again her earnestness and enthusiasm, and the
unaffected gentleness of her address. There was always something about
her that made many a woman think of some dear young brother. Her father
called her "Charlie," and thought of her as his only boy amongst a
family of girls.
It was expected that she would have been released on December 7th, but
the Government who had held her in torment for so long were anxious
to extort from her the very last ounce of their pound of flesh. They
determined not to grant her the remission of one-sixth of the sentence
usually allowed, but to withhold it as a punishment for her refusal
to take food, and they did this though they knew that her father was
dangerously ill and though her mother had appealed for her release on
that ground a week before. There was no fine that could be laid down
to buy her out, for she had been sentenced without that option, and so
perforce she must wait the pleasure of the Government. On the 8th of
December, it was known that Charlotte Marsh's father was dying and her
family made another urgent appeal that she might be brought to him. But
it was not until the 9th that the Home Secretary at last tardily let
her go. She hurried at once to her home in Newcastle, so thin and worn
with what she had suffered, that her sisters scarcely knew her as she
came into the house, only to find that her father was unconscious and
would never wake to know her any more.
FOOTNOTES:
[42] Mr. Lloyd George's baseless insinuation was of course indignantly
and publicly repudiated by the men concerned.
CHAPTER XXIII
DECEMBER, 1909, TO JANUARY, 1910
THE APPEAL OF PANKHURST AND HAVERFIELD V. JARVIS. THE FREEDOM LEAGUE
PICKETS. MRS. PANKHURST RETURNS FROM AMERICA. MRS. LEIGH'S ACTION
AGAINST THE HOME SECRETARY AND THE GOVERNOR AND DOCTOR OF WINSON GREEN
GAOL, BIRMINGHAM. MISS DAVISON'S ACTION AGAINST THE VISITING JUSTICES
OF STRANGEWAYS GAOL, MANCHESTER. ILL TREATMENT OF MISS SELINA MARTIN
AND MISS LESLIE HALL AT WALTON GAOL, LIVERPOOL. LADY CONSTANCE LYTTON
IMPRISONED IN WALTON GAOL AS JANE WARTON.
Whilst Mrs. Pankhurst was still in America, the case in which she, Mrs.
Haverfield and the ninety-two other women were concerned, which had
been hanging over since the summer, was heard in the Divisional Court
on December 1st. It will be remembered that the Suffragettes had sought
to put into practice the constitutional right to petition the Prime
Minister as the representative of the Government and of the King. They
held that this right was especially defined by two Acts, the Bill of
Rights which declares that, "It is the right of the subject to petition
the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are
illegal," and the Statute 13, Charles II, which states:
That no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to His Majesty or
both or either Houses of Parliament upon pretence of presenting or
delivering any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration
or other address, accompanied with excessive number of people, nor
at any time with above the number of ten persons; upon pain of
incurring a penalty not exceeding the sum of £100 in money or three
months' imprisonment without bail or mainprise for every offence;
which offence to be prosecuted at the Court of King's Bench or at
the Assizes or general quarter sessions within six months after
the offence committed and proved by two more credible witnesses.
Provided always that this act or anything therein contained shall
not be considered to extend to debar or hinder any person or persons
not exceeding the number of ten aforesaid, to present any public
or private grievance or complaint to any Member or Members of
Parliament....
Though the women had complied with every provision of the Act, Sir
Albert de Rutzen had decided at Bow Street that they had broken the
law. In appealing against that decision in the Divisional Court, Lord
Robert Cecil contended that in this country there was, and always had
been, a right of petition and he urged that this right was a necessary
condition of all free and indeed of all civilised Government. He
pointed out that the right of petition had three characteristics; in
the first place it was the right to petition the actual repositories of
power; in the second place it was the right to petition in person, and
in the third place it must be exercised reasonably.
In support of his contention that petitions might be presented in
person he quoted several historic instances including a petition of
women to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester in the reign of Henry IV,
many petitions to various powerful personages from all sorts of men
and women in the time of the Civil Wars and the disputes immediately
preceding them; and petitions to the Lord High Steward asking for the
conviction of Strafford. In addition to these he cited numbers of
petitions presented in 1640, when deputations came to the House of
Commons and the Members were instructed to go out and interview the
petitioners and hear what they had to say; a great petition of 1680 as
well as the petitions from the Gentlemen of Kent in 1701; that of the
Silkweavers in 1765; and that of the Trade Unionists in 1834; all of
which were presented in person. Throughout our history it was clear, he
declared, that petitions had been presented, sometimes to the Houses
of Parliament, sometimes to powerful individuals and sometimes to the
King. He referred to a case mentioned in Sir Walter Scott's "Fortune
of Nigel," in which, on King James II complaining of the way in which
a petition was thrust into his hand in the streets, a gentleman named
Jingling Geordie, had taken the opportunity of presenting a petition to
him then and there in his private closet.
Even without these historic examples the Statute 13, Charles II
(already quoted) was enough to establish the right to present petitions
in person. The Bill of Rights had specially confirmed the right of
petition in so far as the King was concerned because the right to
present a petition to the King had recently been called into question
by the case of the seven Bishops, which had taken place on June 29th
and 30th, 1688, in the reign of James II.
The case had arisen because the King had ordered that his Declaration
of Indulgence should be read in all the Churches in the country and the
seven Bishops headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury being of opinion
that the Declaration of Indulgence was beyond the power of the King,
had therefore presented a petition to him setting forth this view. The
King declared the petition to be a seditious libel, and the Bishops
had been brought before the Court of King's Bench. In summing up the
case for the jury, Mr. Justice Holloway said, "So that if there was no
ill-intent and they were not (as it is not nor can be pretended they
were) men of evil lives, to deliver a petition cannot be a fault, it
being the right of every subject to petition." The jury found the seven
Bishops to be guiltless and the right of petition was thus confirmed.
In quoting Mr. Justice Holloway's summing up, Lord Robert Cecil pointed
out that the use of the words "to deliver a petition" clearly indicated
that the right was to present the petition _in person_. If that were
so, the women who had gone to Parliament Square on June 29th had done
so in the exercise of a _constitutional right_. So long as they were
denied votes, this was their only _constitutional_ method of agitation
for the redress of their grievances.
If, as was contended, the right not only to petition, but to petition
in person, belonged to each and every subject, the only point left to
consider was as to whether the right had been exercised reasonably. If
one wished to interview the Prime Minister or any Member of Parliament
it was surely reasonable to go to the House of Commons by means of the
Strangers' Entrance. The evidence clearly showed that Mrs. Haverfield
and the others had been on the public highway and had been brought up
to the door of the House of Commons by Superintendent Isaacs of the
Police, so that up to that point they could not possibly have done
anything wrong. Opposite the door of the House of Commons an open space
had been kept clear by the presence of a police cordon, the crowd not
being allowed to reach this point. Within the cordon there were only
members of the police force, persons who had business in the House of
Commons and the eight members of the Women's deputation. Therefore it
was absurd to say that these eight ladies had caused an obstruction.
It was suggested that the women ought to have gone away because, as
he put it, "a casual policeman" had said that the Prime Minister was
not in the House of Commons, but that was really not a sufficient
answer. The ordinary procedure certainly was not to take an answer
from a policeman in the street if one wished to interview a Member of
Parliament. The police had no right to stop anyone from going into
the House of Commons. It was also said that the women had been given
a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he would not or could
not see them. "Had he said, 'I cannot see you here and now, but I
will see you on such and such an occasion, this is not a convenient
time,' that," argued Lord Robert, "would have been a sufficient answer,
because the right to petition must be exercised reasonably, but his
letter contained an unqualified refusal, and if the right to petition
exists, that is no answer at all."
Lord Robert then submitted that if there is a right to petition a
Member of Parliament there must be a duty on the part of a Member of
Parliament to receive that petition, and that no one is justified in
interfering with the exercise of that right. If the women were legally
justified in insisting upon the right to present their petition they
were also justified in refusing the order of the police to go away for
there was no obligation to obey the police if the police were acting
beyond the scope of their proper duties or contrary to the law of the
land. In the case of Codd v. Cave a warrant had been issued against a
man and a policeman had gone to his house to arrest him without taking
a warrant with him. The man had declined to go with the policeman and
had knocked him down and injured him severely but it had been held by
the Court that the man was not guilty because the policeman had no
right to arrest him without a warrant.
In delivering judgment the Lord Chief Justice said that he entirely
agreed that there was a right to present a petition either to the Prime
Minister as Prime Minister or as a Member of Parliament, and that
petitions to the King should be presented to the Prime Minister. But he
said the claim of the women was not only to present a petition but "to
be received in deputation." Had it been only to present the petition
he did not think that Mr. Asquith would have refused, and he expressed
the opinion that his refusal to receive the women in deputation was
not unnatural, "in consequence of what we know did happen on previous
occasions."
In making this remark the Lord Chief Justice showed that instead of
concentrating his mind upon the actual case before him he was allowing
himself to be biassed by inaccurate reports as to what had taken place
on previous occasions. As a matter of fact Mr. Asquith never had
received a deputation of women since he had been Prime Minister and
never at any time had he received a deputation of the Women's Social
and Political Union in the House of Commons. Therefore it was absurd to
talk about what had taken place on "previous occasions," and, moreover,
even if Mr. Asquith had received deputations on previous occasions and
trouble had resulted, the Lord Chief Justice would have had no right to
take these occurrences into account unless reliable evidence as to what
actually had occurred had been laid before him in connexion with the
case.
Relying on the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, which provides that
it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Police to make regulations
and to give directions to the constables for keeping order and for
preventing any obstruction of the thoroughfares in the immediate
neighbourhood of the House of Commons and the Sessional Order which
empowers the Police to keep clear the approaches to the House of
Commons, the Lord Chief Justice decided that Mrs. Pankhurst, Mrs.
Haverfield and the other women had broken the law when they had
insisted that they had a right to enter the House of Commons and that
for this reason they had been properly convicted and that the appeal
must be dismissed with costs.
By this decision the Ancient Constitutional right of petition secured
to the people of this country by the Act of 13, Charles II, and the
Bill of Rights, was, for all practical purposes, rendered null and
void. What is the use of a right that one may not put into practice?
Does anyone suppose for one moment that the right of petition would
have been cherished as it has been, and that people would have
suffered heavy punishment for putting it into practice, in troublous
times, if it had merely consisted in sending a written document
obscurely, through the post, or by a messenger, to the person in power
whom it was intended to influence? No, for the right could never have
been anything but valueless had the presentation of the petition not
been accompanied by the pomp and circumstance, and the dramatic and
spectacular character, of a public deputation, and by the influence
that only personal pleading can lend. Every scrap of evidence tends
to show that the right of petition was to be exercised personally. If
it were otherwise why should the Act of Charles II have insisted that
the signatories to the petition should be represented by a limited
deputation? Moreover there is no suggestion that a written document
was required and that the petition might not have been made, as it
frequently was, by word of mouth.
Shortly after this case of Pankhurst and Haverfield v. Jarvis had been
decided the Divisional Court was again occupied with an appeal case
bearing upon the right of petition, this time at the instance of the
Women's Freedom League. In July the League had followed the example
of the W. S. P. U. in claiming the constitutional right of personal
petition to the Prime Minister. After much preliminary negotiation a
deputation of their number had appeared at the Strangers' entrance to
the House of Commons on July 5th and on being told that Mr. Asquith
would not receive them they had announced their intention of waiting
there until he should change his mind. They were allowed to wait and,
reinforced by relays of others, continued to do so right on into
the New Year and were constantly to be seen standing outside on the
pavement both day and night, whenever the House was sitting. Many
Members of Parliament appealed to Mr. Asquith to receive them and so
bring their weary vigil to an end but he obstinately refused and always
evaded "the Suffragette pickets," as they were called. Usually he left
the House by one of the underground passages but it was said that
one night he hurried unrecognised through their lines. _Punch_ then
published a cartoon by E. T. Reed, entitled "Mr. Asquith's disguises,"
showing the Prime Minister as a cab driver, a postman, a policeman, an
elderly maiden lady and in other characters.
On July 9th, the pickets were also put on at No. 10 Downing Street,
where they succeeded in waylaying the Prime Minister at about 2
o'clock in the afternoon and ran towards him crying, "A petition! A
petition! Will you give us a hearing, Mr. Asquith?" As he rushed past
he snatched the document from one of them, saying, "Well, I will take
the petition," and then fled on up the steps and banged the door.
The pickets were still waiting for the interview when the police
arrived to arrest them. They were afterwards sentenced to three weeks'
imprisonment in default of paying fines of £3.
On July 15th four women again picketted Downing Street, but were
arrested and sent to prison without even so much as catching a glimpse
of the Premier. On August 16th a line of women was drawn up between the
House of Commons and the door of 10 Downing Street, where stood Mrs.
Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. Despard. This time they saw Mr. Asquith, but
though some of the women spoke to him, he hurried on without making
any reply. Three days later, on the 19th, the line of women was again
formed, but Mrs. Despard, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson and six others were
placed under arrest. Mr. Tim Healy, the well-known Irish member of
Parliament, was briefed for their defence, but on August 27th, Mr.
Curtis Bennett decided to fine the women forty shillings or to send
them to prison for seven days. He stated a case for the High Court
and this was heard on January 14th, 1910, when the Lord Chief Justice
decided against the women, saying that there were other means of
presenting petitions than going in numbers to do so.
Meanwhile it was announced that the cases against the ninety-four women
who were concerned with Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Haverfield would be
withdrawn, but at the same time application was made by the authorities
for the fines recorded against Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Haverfield
and it was intimated that unless these were forthcoming, steps would
be taken to arrest and imprison them. But immediately after this,
on Monday, December 6th, an official receipt for the amount of Mrs.
Pankhurst's fine was sent to Clement's Inn and it was stated that the
money had been paid by some unknown person.[43] Two days later Mrs.
Pankhurst returned from her lecturing tour in the United States and
Canada, which had been a most triumphant success.
On December 9th, the action by Mrs. Leigh against Mr. Gladstone as Home
Secretary, and the Governor and Doctor of Winson Green Gaol, which
as to decide the question of the legality of forcible feeding by the
prison authorities, was tried before the Lord Chief Justice. It was
pointed out on Mrs. Leigh's behalf that there was no rule or regulation
to justify forcible feeding. Dr. Ernest Dormer Kirby, who had attended
her on her release, testified that her condition was "distinctly
grave," and that she had then weighed no more than six stone six
pounds. Sir Victor Horsley, Mr. William Hugh Fenton, Senior Surgeon at
the Chelsea Hospital for Women, and Mr. Mansell-Moullin all declared
forcible feeding by means of the nasal tube to be painful, dangerous,
injurious to health, and incapable of providing adequate nourishment.
Dr. Maurice Craig, Consulting Physician of Welbach Street, and late
Senior Assistant Physician at Bethlehem Hospital, who was called as a
witness for the defence of Mr. Gladstone and of the officials, said
that the operation of nasal feeding was "a simple one on the average."
He considered it more dangerous to leave a patient starving than to
overcome resistance.
[Illustration: Jessie Kenney as she tried to gain admittance to Mr.
Asquith's meeting on Dec. 10, 1909 disguised as a telegraph boy]
Sir Richard Douglas Powell, also called for the defence, admitted that
he would not willingly resort to artificial feeding unless it was
"quite necessary."
The Lord Chief Justice said that he should rule that it was the duty
of the medical officer of the prison to take all reasonable steps to
preserve Mrs. Leigh's life and to prevent her committing suicide. The
only question he should leave to the jury would be whether the governor
and doctor had taken the right steps. In his summing-up he assumed
throughout that the jury must decide against Mrs. Leigh. They did as he
directed, and she thereupon lost her case.
On January 19th, an action was begun by Miss Emily Wilding Davison
against the visiting justices of Strangeways Gaol, Manchester, for
having ordered that a hose-pipe should be played upon her. Judge
Parry said that the use of the hose-pipe was both ineffective and
unnecessary; that the duty of the visiting justices was to prevent any
abuse of authority by the officials of the gaol; and to report and
make suggestions. Therefore he held that they were not justified in
ordering the assault, and decided the case in Miss Davison's favour.
In assessing the damages, however, he said that he should take into
account the fact that the hose-pipe incident had resulted in the
prisoner's release before the expiration of her sentence; had provided
her with "'copy' for a vivacious and entertaining account of the affair
in the Press"; and had advertised her cause. Under these circumstances
the damages should be no more than forty shillings, a nominal sum. The
costs which were charged against the visiting magistrates were however
placed on the highest scale because the case was held to be one of
great importance.
Meanwhile there was no lack of turbulent scenes all over the country.
Cabinet Ministers' meetings were daily being interrupted both by women
who had succeeded in concealing themselves and by men who urged the
question of Votes for Women on their behalf. When Mr. Lloyd George
spoke at Reading two women started up from under the platform, during
his speech. In the Queen's Hall, London, a few days afterwards, a
forcible feeding tube was suddenly flung at him and he caught it in his
hands. As the stewards fell upon the man who had thrown it, Mr. Lloyd
George cried, "I do not envy him his paid job."
When speaking in the Louth Town Hall, Mr. Lloyd George was referring
to the House of Lords as an "unrepresentative chamber" when a voice
from the roof remarked, "So is the House of Commons as far as women are
concerned." "I see some rats have got in; let them squeal, it does not
matter," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, amidst a terrible
uproar, Miss Hudson and Miss Bertha Brewster were dragged down from
amongst the rafters where they had lain concealed for many hours. They
were taken to the police station, charged with infringing the Public
Meeting Act, and detained in custody from Saturday until Monday, both
in the same small cell, which contained only one narrow prison mattress
and some rugs. On Monday the magistrate discharged them with a caution,
complimenting them on their pluck. The Government was averse to
allowing them to be let off so lightly, and on Wednesday Miss Brewster
was rearrested for having broken her cell windows in Walton Gaol,
Liverpool, in the previous August. She was sentenced to six weeks'
imprisonment, but gave notice to appeal against the sentence on the
ground that she had already been specially punished for this offence
whilst in prison. On January 31st she was released in order that she
might prosecute the appeal, and evidently thinking that the case hardly
did him credit, Mr. Gladstone announced that she would not be asked to
complete her term of imprisonment. The appeal was therefore dropped.
On December 20th, Mr. Asquith had arranged to speak both at Liverpool
and Birkenhead, and owing to his desire to avoid the Suffragettes,
detectives smuggled him across the river, amongst the luggage.
Nevertheless outside the Liberal Club Miss Selina Martin and Miss
Leslie Hall, who stood in the gutter, the one disguised as a match
girl, and the other as an orange seller, spoke to him as he stepped
from his motor car, and urged upon him the necessity for granting the
franchise to women. He dashed away without answering, and in protest,
and by way of warning, Miss Selina Martin tossed a ginger beer bottle
into the empty car which he had left.
Both women were at once arrested, and were afterwards remanded in
custody for six days. Bail was refused, though Miss Selina Martin
promised that she and her comrade would refrain from militant action
until the case should come on.[44] The women were removed to Walton
Gaol, and were there treated as though they had been ordinary convicted
criminals. They protested by refusing to eat just as so many of their
comrades had done before them. Miss Martin also barricaded her cell,
but the officials forced their way in, pulled her off the bed and
flung her on the floor, shaking and striking her unmercifully. Shortly
afterwards her cell was visited by the deputy medical officer, who
ordered that she should get up and dress. She explained that she had
been wet through by the snow storm on the previous day and that her
clothes were still saturated, for no attempt had been made to get
them dry, but she was forcibly dressed and, with her hands handcuffed
behind her, was dragged to a cold, dark punishment cell and flung on
the stone floor. She lay there in an exhausted state for some hours,
being unable to rise without the aid of her hands and arms, which were
still fastened behind her back, until, at last, a wardress came in and
lifted her onto the bed board. The irons were kept on all night. On
Friday, the third day of her imprisonment, Miss Martin was brought up
before the visiting magistrates. She protested against the way in which
she was being treated, pointing out that she was still an unconvicted
prisoner, but she was told that the officials were quite justified in
all that they might do. The same evening several wardresses entered her
cell and ordered her to go to the doctor's room to be forcibly fed.
"I refused," she says, "and was dragged to the foot of the stairs with
my hands handcuffed behind. Then I was frog-marched, that is to say,
carried face downwards by the arms and legs to the Doctor's room.
After a violent struggle I was forced into a chair, the handcuffs
removed, my arms being held by the wardresses, whilst the doctor
forcibly fed me by that obnoxious instrument, the stomach tube. Most
unnecessary force was used by the assistant medical officer when
applying the gag. The operation finished, I walked handcuffed to the
top of the stairs but refused to return to the punishment cell. Then
two wardresses caught me by the shoulders and dragged me down the
steps, another kicking me from behind. As I reached the bottom step
they relaxed their hold and I fell on my head. I was picked up and
carried to the cell."
Next day she was forcibly fed and afterwards again refused to return to
the dark cell, but she says, "I was seized by a number of wardresses
and carried down the steps, my head being allowed to bump several
times."
Meanwhile, Miss Leslie Hall had also broken her windows and had been
placed in a punishment cell and kept in handcuffs continuously for
three days. After two and a half days' fasting she was fed by the
stomach tube. The doctor had taunted her meanwhile, and jokingly told
the wardress that she was "mentally sick," and that it was "like
stuffing a turkey for Christmas."
On Monday, December 27th, the women were again brought into court,
when Miss Leslie Hall was ordered one month's imprisonment with hard
labour, and Miss Selina Martin two months. On returning to prison both
the women refused to wear prison dress and recommenced the hunger
strike. Each one was then clothed in a straight jacket and placed in
a punishment cell. Forcible feeding was continued and they both grew
rapidly weaker until February 3rd, when they were released.
Meanwhile the facts as to their treatment whilst imprisoned on remand
had been widely circulated, for they had dictated statements for their
friends' use whilst their trial was being conducted. Mr. Gladstone
wrote to the _Times_ denying the truth of the statements, declaring
that the reason for refusing bail to the women was that they had
refused to promise to be of good behaviour until their trial came
on, that no unnecessary violence had been used and that the women
themselves had made no complaint. But indeed, the inaccuracy of Mr.
Gladstone's statements had become proverbial, for he was constantly
denying the truth of charges which were clearly substantiated by the
most reliable evidence.
Now Lady Constance Lytton, in spite of her fragile constitution
and the disease from which she suffered, again determined to place
herself beside the women in the fighting ranks who were enduring the
greatest hardship. Believing that she had been released from Newcastle
prison on account of her rank, and family influence, she determined
that this time she would go disguised. She knew that, not only her
family, but the leaders of the militant movement would try to dissuade
her on account of her health. She, therefore, decided to speak of
her intention to no one except Mrs. Baines and a few local workers
whom she pledged to secrecy. On January 14th, she and Mrs. Baines
organised a procession to Walton Gaol. A halt was called opposite the
prison, and, having told the story of what was happening inside Lady
Constance called the people to follow her to its gates, and demand the
release of the tortured women. Then she moved forward and, as she had
foreseen, she was immediately placed under arrest. At the same time
Elsie Howey dashed into the prison yard and broke one of the windows
of the Governor's house by striking it with a purple-white-and-green
flag. She, too, was taken into custody and, bail being refused, the two
comrades passed the night in the cells. Lady Constance had disguised
herself by cutting her hair, wearing spectacles, and dressing herself
in poor and plain garments, and now she gave Jane Warton, seamstress,
as her name and occupation. Next morning she was sentenced to fourteen
days' hard labour without the option of a fine, whilst Elsie Howey
was sent to prison for six weeks' hard labour. Then they were dragged
ruthlessly away to the torture which they well knew was to come.
On arriving at the prison, on Saturday, January 15th, they made the
usual claim to be treated as political prisoners, and, on this being
refused, signified their intention of refusing to conform to any of the
prison rules. Thereupon they were forcibly stripped by the wardresses
and dressed in the prison clothes. At five o'clock, on Tuesday, the
doctor entered Lady Constance Lytton's cell with four wardresses and
the forcible feeding apparatus. Then, without testing her heart or
feeling her pulse, though she had not been medically examined since
entering the prison, he ordered that she should be placed in position.
She did not resist, but lay down on the bed board voluntarily, well
knowing that she would need all her strength for the ordeal that
was to come. Her poor heart was palpitating wildly, but she set her
teeth and tried to calm herself. The doctor then produced a wooden
and a steel gag and told her that he would not use the latter, which
would hurt, unless she resisted him; but, as she would not unlock
her teeth, he threw the milder wooden instrument aside and pried her
mouth open with the steel one. Then the stomach tube was forced down
and the whole hateful feeding business was gone through. "The reality
surpassed all that I had anticipated," she said. "It was a living
nightmare of pain, horror and revolting degradation. The sense is of
being strangled, suffocated by the thrust down of the large rubber
tube, which arouses great irritation in the throat and nausea in the
stomach. The anguish and effort of retching whilst the tube is forcibly
pressed back into the stomach and the natural writhing of the body
restrained, defy description. I forgot what I was in there for, I
forgot women, I forgot everything, except my own sufferings, and I was
completely overcome by them." The doctor, annoyed by her one effort
to resist, affected to consider her distress assumed, and struck her
contemptuously on the cheek as he rose to leave, but the wardresses
showed pity for her weakness, and they helped her to wipe her clothes,
over which she had been sick. They promised to bring her others in the
morning, but she was obliged to pass the night as she was, for, owing
both to the low temperature of the cell and her own lack of vitality,
she was always so cold that she wore her nightdress and all her clothes
both night and day; even then her limbs remained stiff with cold, and
though, at last, as a special favour, she was allowed first one, and
then another extra blanket and the cape which the prisoners wear at
exercise, she remained cold, for she says, "It was like clothing a
stone to warm it." When she was fed the second time the vomiting was
more excessive and the doctor's clothes suffered. He was angry and left
her cell hastily, saying, "You did that on purpose. If you do it again
to-morrow I shall feed you twice."
How very much easier would it have been to have given in or never to
have started this resistance? How very much more natural to this gentle
creature whose whole life had been one of affectionate deference to
the wishes of others, who, because of her kindly sweetness had been
named by her family "Angel Con," would it have been to save others
trouble and quietly to submit to the discomforts of prison life. But
where principles were in question, none could be stronger or firmer
than Constance Lytton, and she was determined to go on with the
bitter thing until the end. Yet, through it all, her gentle nature was
apparent. She could not bear that any of the ordinary prisoners should
be brought in to clean up the mess on her cell floor and, except upon
one or two occasions she always managed to do it for herself in spite
of her weakness and distress. Notwithstanding his brutal rudeness to
her, she even tried to wipe the doctor's clothes, if anything was spilt
upon them. For the sake of the other prisoners she tried, too, to help
him with his hateful task by making suggestions to him as to how it
might be rendered more efficacious and some of its horrors mitigated,
but her suggestions were contemptuously disregarded. The third time
she was fed she vomited continuously, but the doctor kept pouring in
more food until she was seized with a violent fit of shivering. Then
he became alarmed. He hastily told the wardresses to lay her on the
floor and called in his assistant to test her heart, but, after a brief
and superficial investigation, it was pronounced "quite sound" and the
pulse "steady." Next time he appeared he pleaded with her, saying, "I
do beg of you, I appeal to you, not as a prison doctor, but as a man,
to give over. You are a delicate woman, you are not fit for this sort
of thing." "Is anybody fit for it?" she answered. "I beg of you, I
appeal to you, not as a prisoner, but as a woman, to refuse to continue
this inhuman treatment."
From Wednesday, January 19th, and onwards, she began to find that not
only did she receive greater consideration from the doctor, but that
there was a marked change in her treatment generally. This led her to
conclude that her identity had been discovered or at least suspected,
and she therefore tried to take advantage of whatever privileges
might be made to her in order to secure concessions for her comrades
and to induce the officials to act with more humanity. But, though
she considered that she had been treated with more kindness than was
usual, we learn that obvious simple necessities were denied her. The
processes of digestion were entirely stagnant and she was losing weight
daily, and though she made several suggestions as to remedies and at
last an aperient drug was promised to her, it was never supplied. She
was right, however, in thinking that her identity had been discovered.
On Friday the authorities made up their minds that she was not Jane
Warton, and on Sunday morning both the governor and doctor appeared and
told her that she was to be released and that her sister had come to
fetch her.
Lady Constance Lytton now sent a careful statement to Mr. Gladstone
asserting that the forcible feeding was performed with unnecessary
cruelty and without proper care. He declared that all her charges
were unfounded, and the visiting magistrates, having held a one-sided
enquiry into the matter, announced that the regulations had been
carried out with the greatest care and consideration.
FOOTNOTES:
[43] A few days later the same thing happened in the case of Mrs.
Haverfield, and later still in regard to the members of the Women's
Freedom League.
[44] Miss Martin's promise was reported in the Liverpool _Daily Post_
and other papers.
CHAPTER XXIV
1910
THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE TRUCE, THE CONCILIATION COMMITTEE, A SERIES
OF GREAT DEMONSTRATIONS. WAR IS AGAIN DECLARED. ANOTHER GENERAL
ELECTION. CONCLUSION.
With the opening of the new year, 1910, whilst many of the women
were still in prison, the General Election began. The Women's Social
and Political Union fought the Government in forty constituencies.
In almost every one of these contests the Liberal vote was reduced,
and eighteen of the seats, which had been held by Government
representatives at the dissolution, were wrested from them. During the
election the Liberal Government's absolute majority over all sections
of the House had been swept away, and they were now dependent for their
existence upon the votes of the Labour and Irish parties.
The Suffragettes were now advised in many quarters that the militant
tactics had forced the Government to the point of wishing to gain
peace by granting votes to women, but that Cabinet Ministers were now
afraid to do so lest they should seem to have given way to coercion.
The contest for supreme power in the new Parliament being over, the
women therefore decided to give the re-elected Government and the
Parliamentary supporters of Women's Suffrage a quiet opportunity to
settle the matter between them. On February 14th, the W. S. P. U.
proclaimed a truce, and the Women's Freedom League followed suit.
During the past year more than twenty thousand meetings had been held
by the W. S. P. U. alone, in addition to the many thousands organised
by the other suffrage societies. Now that militancy was to be laid
aside a period of even greater effort in the direction of building up
the organisation and extending the purely educational work was to be
entered upon.
Important developments were also to take place within Parliament
itself. For many years a committee of Parliamentary supporters of
Women's Suffrage, had existed. This was originally inaugurated on June
10th, 1887, under the influence of Miss Lydia Becker. It was strictly
non-party, Members from all sections of the House having belonged to
it. During the Parliament elected in 1906, however, the old committee
had been allowed to lapse. The Liberal supporters of the question
formed a Women's Suffrage Committee of their own, and, abandoning the
attempt to secure votes for women, and seeking instead to extend the
franchise all around, they had put forward Mr. Geoffrey Howard's Reform
Bill, which had had no chance of being carried.
Now, largely owing to the efforts of Mr. H. N. Brailsford, a
"Conciliation Committee" was formed with the object of uniting all
sections of opinion favourable to women's enfranchisement and of coming
to a common agreement upon some particular measure. The Earl of Lytton
acted as Chairman of this Committee and Mr. Brailsford, himself, as
Secretary. Its members consisted of twenty-five Liberals, seventeen
Conservatives, six Irish Nationalists, and six members of the Labour
Party. In discussing the terms of the Bill to be adopted, the Unionist
members urged that it should be moderate, whilst the Liberals insisted
that it must give no loophole for increasing the possibilities of
plural voting or of adding to the power of the propertied classes.
Though the majority of the women who attend the English Universities do
so as a preparation for earning their livelihood, the Liberals did not
wish to see the Franchise for University graduates, which is exercised
by men, extended to women because, as they said, the poorest women do
not graduate. For similar reasons they opposed the granting of votes
to women under the Joint Household qualification, which applies only
to houses rented at twenty pounds a year and upwards; under the Lodger
franchise, which applies only to those who pay at least four shillings
a week for an unfurnished room; and under the Ownership franchise. To
overcome the objections of the self-styled democrats, the old Women's
Enfranchisement Bill which would have given bare justice to women by
extending the Parliamentary vote to them on equal terms with men was
therefore abandoned, and a measure was drafted on the lines of the
existing Municipal Franchise of which the basis is occupation and under
which there is no qualification for Owners, Lodgers or Graduates.
Local Government was the earliest form of government in this country;
it has been the most persistent and staple. Government from the
centre was of later growth, and has many times been interrupted. The
Municipal Franchise as it exists to-day is chiefly dependent on the
Municipal Corporations Acts of 1835 and 1839. Before the passing of the
first of these Acts women possessed and exercised equal voting rights
with men in regard to matters of local Government, but the act of 1835
deprived them of these rights in all towns incorporated under it. In
1865, however, Women's Suffrage societies, demanding the admission of
women to both national and local franchises, sprang into being, and
when the Municipal Corporation's Act of 1869 was before Parliament,
Mr. Jacob Bright succeeded in carrying an amendment to restore to
women the rights of which the Act of 1835 had deprived them. It was a
Liberal Government that framed and carried the Municipal Corporation's
Act of 1869, and that Government accepted the amendment to extend its
provisions to women. There was no suggestion then, nor has any since
been made, that that franchise, when exercised either by men or women,
is undemocratic when applied to municipal purposes.
Therefore, following the lines of the existing municipal franchise, the
Conciliation Committee proposed to extend the Parliamentary vote to
women householders and to women occupiers of business premises paying
ten pounds a year and upwards. It was estimated that ninety-five per
cent. of the women who would be enfranchised under this Conciliation
Bill would be householders. To the householder franchise no monetary
qualification whatsoever is attached, and every one who inhabits even
a single room over which he or she has full control is counted as a
householder.
As soon as this bill had been decided upon by the members of
Parliament, who formed the Conciliation Committee, it was submitted to
the various suffrage and other women's organisations, with a request
to adopt it. Many of the societies, including the militants, at first
demurred on the ground that though the number of women enfranchised
would not differ greatly, the principle of equality between men
and women, which the Women's Enfranchisement Bill had laid down,
would be sacrificed by the new measure. Mr. Brailsford and others
urged, however, that the Conciliation Bill was the only one to which
the various sections in the House who supported Women's Suffrage
would agree. They also pointed out that, as the women whom it was
proposed to enfranchise were already upon the Municipal Register, no
difficulty would be experienced in adding the lists of their names
to the Parliamentary Register also before the next General Election,
even should this take place within the year. Therefore, on condition
that it should be passed during the session, all the various women's
organisations worked wholeheartedly for the measure.
On June 18 the W. S. P. U. organised in support of the Conciliation
Bill a greater procession of women than had ever yet been held, in
which joined numbers of organisations, both national and international.
Headed by a company of six hundred and seventeen women in white dresses
carrying long gleaming silver staves tipped with broad arrows, each
representing an imprisonment, the massed ranks with their gay banners
took more than an hour and a half to pass a given point. The Great
Albert Hall was able to contain but a section of the processionists.
No place for Women's Suffrage had been obtained in the private Members'
ballot. The Conciliation Bill had been drafted in the hope that the
Government would provide time for its discussion, and five days after
the great procession, the Prime Minister, in reply to an influentially
signed petition of Members of Parliament, promised to give facilities
for the second reading of the Bill. At the same time he stated that he
could not provide an early date for this, but, just as the militant
forces were preparing for action, he agreed to fix Monday and Tuesday,
July the 11th and 12th, for the discussion of the Bill.
The object of the Conciliation Bill's promoters was, of course, not
merely to secure the passage of the second reading by a substantial
majority, but also that it should be sent for discussion to one of the
standing committees instead of being referred to a Committee of the
whole House; because, if the latter course were pursued no further
progress could be made unless the Government were prepared to provide
more time.
As usual the attitude of the Government was anxiously awaited. It
was rumoured that Mr. Lloyd George would speak in opposition to the
bill, but those who believed his professions of friendship for the
women's cause hoped against hope that he would not do so. Mr. Winston
Churchill had been several times in conference with the officials
of the Conciliation Committee and had expressed sympathy with their
object. They counted confidently upon his help. It is true that some
days before the debate, they had received a letter from him criticising
the terms of the Bill, but they still regarded him as a friend to the
measure. Nevertheless early in the second days' debate he rose to
make a bitter and uncompromising attack upon it. He began by seeking
to prove that the grievance of excluding women from the franchise
was greatly exaggerated, that they did not suffer any legislative
disability therefrom, and that neither the mass of the women themselves
nor of the male electorate desired the enfranchisement of women. He
went on to speak vaguely of the danger of creating "a vast body of
privileged and dependent voters who might be manipulated, manœuvred
in this division or in that." Then, having elaborately striven to
build up a case against the granting of votes to women on any terms,
he proceeded with an air of considerable magnanimity to admit that
a slight grievance existed because all women were disfranchised.
He was of the opinion that this grievance could only be redressed
in one or two ways; either by giving the vote "to some of the best
women of all classes" or by giving the vote to every woman. The
former method he described as "the first way," and he said, "I always
hoped the Conciliation Committee would travel along that road." In
particularising his favourite method of proceeding by means of his
proposed special franchises he admitted that no doubt these would
be "disrespectfully called 'fancy franchises,'" and explained that
they would give the vote to "a comparatively small number of women
of all classes on considerations" of "property," "earning capacity"
or "education." These special franchises would, he said, "be fairly
balanced, one against the other, so as not on the whole to give an
undue advantage to the property vote as against the wage earning vote."
"That," he said, "would not be a Democratic proposal...." "It would
provide for the representation of the sex through the strongest, most
capable and most responsible women in every class and that would meet
the main grievance in my humble judgment."
Thus the loudly professing democrat, Mr. Churchill, proposed to
enfranchise only those women whom the members of the Conciliation
Committee, in the earnest and patient effort to comply with Mr.
Asquith's proviso that their Bill must be democratic, had gradually
weeded out. They had excluded the property owners as such in favor
of their poorer sisters, the graduates, because only the comfortably
circumstanced can go to college, and the lodgers, because the majority
of women wage earners, to the shame of our country, cannot afford to
pay four shilling a week for their rooms. These three classes, the
women who own property, those who have graduated at college and those
who earn comparatively high wages, were surely those whom Mr. Churchill
had intended to indicate. The women had agreed to their exclusion
because, as compared with the householders, their numbers were small.
This was the very reason for which Mr. Churchill had selected them
for inclusion, for he described the Conciliation Bill as "an enormous
addition to the Franchise," though it would only enfranchise one
million women as against seven million men.
He went on to attack the terms of the Conciliation Bill describing
it as "anti-Democrat," and declaring that it gave representation to
property as against persons. "The more I study the Bill," he said, "the
more astonished I am that such a large number of respected Members of
Parliament should have found it possible to put their names to it." He
complained that the bulk of married women would not be able to qualify,
but that a man who owned a house and stable would be able to qualify
his wife for the former and himself for the latter, as though that
would not also be the case under his own proposed "fancy franchises."
He asserted that the young inexperienced girl of twenty-one would be
enfranchised under the Conciliation Bill, whilst "the woman who keeps
by her labour an invalid husband and his family" would get no vote.
Yet in practice we all know that girls of twenty-one are not usually
qualified either as householders or occupiers, and in justice, and
let us hope in its practice also, the woman who works to maintain her
husband and family, is counted as the responsible householder and would
vote instead of the husband she maintains.
He ended with a final appeal to Members to vote against the Bill,
saying that a vote on the Second Reading of this Bill was equivalent to
that on the Third Reading of any other, and that those who cast their
votes for it, should be able to say, "I want this Bill passed into law
this session regardless of all other consequences. I want it as it is;
and I want it now."
Mr. Asquith spoke against the principle of Women's enfranchisement in
general, and against the Conciliation Bill in particular. He began by
saying that a franchise measure ought not to be sent to a standing
committee but to one of the Whole House. He declared also that his
conditions that proof must be shown that the majority of the women
desired any proposed measures for their enfranchisement and that the
measure should be democratic in its character, had not been complied
with.
Towards the end of the debate Mr. Lloyd George also threw the weight
of his influence into the scale against the Bill. He stated that he
agreed with every word both relevant and irrelevant that had been
uttered by Mr. Churchill. Nevertheless he refrained from depreciating
the abstract principle of Women's Suffrage as the Home Secretary had
done, and directed his attack wholly against the terms of the Bill. In
defiance of the fact he persistently declared that the Conciliation
Committee which had drafted the Bill was "a committee of women meeting
outside the House," and that they had come to the House saying, "not
merely must you vote for Women's Suffrage, but you must vote for the
particular form upon which we agree, and we will not even allow you
to deliberate upon any other form." He said that this was a position
which "no self-respecting legislature could possibly accept;" yet
the Government had all the Parliamentary year at their disposal to
introduce what measures they chose, and for years and years the women
had been calling upon them to formulate a Women's Suffrage measure of
their own. It had been urged, he said, that this Bill was better than
none at all.
"Why should that be the alternative?" he asked. But when a member
called out, "What is the Other?" he answered evasively, "Well I cannot
say for the moment; but allow me, I am trying to concentrate for the
sake of others who desire to follow me in this debate."
Later he said: "If the promoters of this Bill say that they regard the
Second Reading merely as an affirmation of the principle of Women's
Suffrage, and if they promise that when they reintroduce the Bill it
will be in a form which will enable the House of Commons to move any
Amendment either for restriction or for extension I shall be happy to
vote for this Bill."
"Will the Government give time?" asked Mr. Roch, a Liberal member, but
the only answer was: "That is a question for the Prime Minister."
Mr. Snowden, winding up the debate for the promoters of the Bill,
replied to Mr. Lloyd George's challenge. He said: "We will withdraw
this Bill, if the Right Hon. gentleman on behalf of the Government
or the Prime Minister himself, will undertake to give to this House
the opportunity of discussing and carrying through its various stages
another form of franchise Bill. If we cannot get that, then we shall
prosecute this Bill." Mr. Lloyd George and the other members of the
Government sat silent. They well knew the difficulties under which the
Conciliation Committee laboured, and they knew, too, that the women
were striving at great cost and sacrifice to obtain for their sex the
largest possible measure of representation; but with the power to
speedily bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, they preferred
to hamper the efforts of both with obstructive criticism. As Mr.
Snowden aptly put it:
"It would pass the wit of man to put that principle into a Bill which
would meet with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
the Home Secretary."
Mr. Balfour, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Runciman were amongst those who spoke
in support of the Bill, but the two Ministers urged that it should not
be allowed to pass to one of the standing Committees.
After thirty-nine speeches had been delivered the division was taken.
The Second Reading was then found to have been carried by 299 votes
to 190, giving a favourable majority of 109, a majority larger than
that cast during the Parliament for any measure and even for the
Government's vaunted Budget and House of Lords Resolutions.
A division was next taken on a resolution to refer the Bill to a
Committee of the Whole House. The anti-Suffragists, in the hope of
shelving the Bill, those who feared to anger the Government and those
who genuinely believed that so important a measure should be considered
by the Whole House in each of its stages combined to carry this
resolution by 320 votes to 175.
The question was now whether the Government would allow the few days
necessary for the Committee and other final stages. Practically all
other important legislative work was hanging fire because of the
deadlock in regard to the House of Lords controversy. The Conference
between the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, which,
after King Edward's death, had been set up to discuss this matter,
was still sitting and until its deliberations were at end no progress
towards a settlement would be made. Therefore for the moment Parliament
had plenty of time on its hands, and urgent pressure was brought upon
the Government to give out of this abundance to the Women's Bill.
On July 17th the Men's Political Union for Women's Suffrage, the
Men's League for Women's Suffrage and the Conciliation Committee held
a joint meeting in Hyde Park, in support of the Bill. On July 23rd,
the Anniversary of the day in 1867 on which the pulling down of the
Hyde Park Railings won the vote for the working men in the towns, the
Women's Social and Political Union held another great demonstration
there for which a space of half a square mile was specially cleared.
There were forty platforms, many societies co-operated and two fine
processions--one from the East and the other from the West--marched to
the meeting. The older Suffragists had also demonstrated in Trafalgar
Square, but on the very day of the W. S. P. U.'s big Hyde Park meeting
the Prime Minister wrote to Lord Lytton refusing to allow any further
time for the Bill that session.
But Parliament was to meet again in the Autumn. It was still hoped that
the Government might concede the time then. Resolutions urging them to
do so were sent in from numbers of popularly elected bodies including
the Corporations of Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Nottingham,
Glasgow, Dundee, Dublin, Cork, and thirty others.
There were signs that the truce of the militants, which had lasted for
nine months, would soon be at an end. This time it was men friends to
the cause who gave the first warning. On October 17th young Mr. Victor
Duval, now secretary of the Men's Political Union for Women's Suffrage
was arrested for seizing Mr. Lloyd George by the lapel of his coat and
rebuking him for his hostility to the Women's Bill as he passed into
the City Temple where he was to speak. Mr. George Jacobs, an elderly
man saw that the police were treating Duval roughly and called out
to them, "Do not hurt him." He also was arrested and both men were
imprisoned for a week.
Mr. Lloyd George had been speaking against the Conciliation Bill
in Wales, and numbers of Welsh women Liberals plainly showed their
disapproval of his action. The women constituents of several other
Cabinet Ministers were pressing to be received in deputation, and in
view of the General Election they could scarcely be denied. On October
27th, Mr. Asquith consented to see the women of East Fife. He told them
that facilities could not be granted before the close of the year and
even when asked what of next year he merely answered, "Wait and see."
Other Ministers seconded him. They were all agreed in refusing to allow
the Bill to pass into law that year.
Therefore at a great meeting in the Albert Hall on November 10th the
truce broke--war was once more declared. Mrs. Pankhurst announced that
another deputation would march to the House of Commons to carry a
petition to the Prime Minister. She herself would lead the deputation,
"If I were to go alone," she said, "still I would go," but at that
hundreds of women's voices cried out from all parts of the Hall: "Mrs.
Pankhurst, I will go with you," "I will go!" "I will go!" Then Mrs.
Pethick Lawrence called for funds for the campaign, and nine thousand
pounds was immediately subscribed.
The Autumn Session lasted but a few days, for on November 18, Mr.
Asquith announced that Parliament would be dissolved on November 28th,
and that a general election would take place. Even whilst he spoke,
the women,--450 of them, divided into companies of less than twelve to
keep within the law,--were marching from the Caxton Hall and Clement's
Inn. Mrs. Pankhurst, Dr. Garrett Anderson, founder of Girton College
and one of the medical women pioneers now over seventy years of age,
Mrs. Hertha Ayrton, the scientist, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, and Miss
Neligan and Mrs. Brackenbury, both of whom had reached the great age
of seventy-eight, were amongst the first little band. They soon learnt
that the Prime Minister had refused to see them. Some of their number
were hurled back into the crowd. The remainder were kept standing on
the porch for hours with the shut door before them and a surging crowd
behind.
The companies of women who came after were torn apart, felled to the
ground, struck again and again, bruised and battered, and tossed hither
and thither with a violence that perhaps excelled anything that had
gone before. One hundred and fifteen women and four men were eventually
arrested. But the full story of that day's happenings belongs to
another, and, let us hope, to the last chapter of this long fight.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister forgot to reply to Mr. Keir Hardie's
question as to the fate of the Conciliation Bill. Lord Balcarries then
moved a resolution which was practically a vote of censure upon the
Government for their treatment of the women. Fifty-two Members voted
for it, but it was lost. Eventually Mr. Lloyd George said the Prime
Minister would make a statement on the following Tuesday.
Tuesday saw the Women's Parliament again in Session and the women
waiting eagerly for the news. Mr. Asquith said: "The Government 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." He refused, however, to promise that this should be
done during the first year of the New Parliament.
Facilities for the Conciliation Bill had been asked for; the reply
that facilities would be given to a Bill so framed as to admit of free
amendment was too vague to please the women. But the refusal to grant
an opportunity for passing a Suffrage Bill into law during the first
year of Parliament was more serious. The Parliament now to be dissolved
had lasted less than a year. Who could insure a longer life for its
successor? Mr. Asquith had given the women scant reason to trust any
vague promises of his.
Therefore Mrs. Pankhurst announced to the women, "I am going to
Downing Street. Come along, all of you;" and the women went. The
police, however, gradually beat them back, and over a hundred arrests
were made. On Wednesday, there were eighteen further arrests, and
twenty-nine more on Thursday. Many of the women were discharged, but
seventy-five received sentences of imprisonment varying from fourteen
days to one month.
Then came the general election, and again the Suffragettes strenuously
opposed the Government. In almost every constituency fought by
them the Liberal vote was reduced. A notable instance was that
of Cardiff, where a Liberal majority of 1555 was converted into a
Conservative majority of 299. Here the 800 members of the Women's
Liberal Association abstained from working for their party because its
candidate, Sir Clarendon Hyde, was opposed to votes for women. The end
of the election saw the Liberal government still in power.
During the year the Women's Suffrage societies had all grown largely.
The Women's Social and Political Union's salaried staff now stands at
110 persons. Its central offices at Clement's Inn occupy twenty-three
rooms, and a shop and thirteen rooms have also been taken for the
Woman's Press at 156 Charing Cross Road. There are also 105 local
centres of the Union. The income of the central organisation of the W.
S. P. U. during 1910 was 34,500 pounds excluding 9,000 pounds made by
the Woman's press and many thousands collected by the local Unions. The
twenty thousand pound campaign fund is now complete.
The Conciliation Bill has been again introduced. Again its scope and
title have been modified to please the "democrats." Its text now is:--
Every woman possessed of a household qualification within the meaning
of the representation of the people Act (1884) shall be entitled to be
registered as a voter and when registered to vote for the county or
borough in which the qualifying premises are situate.
For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified by
marriage from being registered as a voter provided that a husband and
wife shall not both be registered as voters in the same Parliamentary
Borough or County Division.
In reply to a deputation of women who waited upon him in October, 1910,
Mr. Birrell said: "I am strongly of opinion that in the course of next
year facilities must be given for the Bill. You are perfectly right,"
he added, "in feeling irritated and annoyed at the delay that has taken
place and in insisting on a date for Parliamentary action."
Mr. Asquith's promise is that facilities for a Women's Suffrage measure
will be granted during this Parliament. Such statements as these must
now be held as binding, and the long standing Government veto of this
question must be withdrawn.
* * * * *
So the gallant struggle for a great reform draws to its close. Full of
stern fighting and bitter hardship as it has been, it has brought much
to the women of our time--a courage, a self-reliance, a comradeship,
and above all a spiritual growth, a conscious dwelling in company with
the ideal, which has tended to strip the littleness from life and to
give to it the character of an heroic mission.
May we prize and cherish the great selfless spirit that has been
engendered, and, applying it to the purposes of our Government--the
nation's housekeeping--the management of our collective affairs, may
we, men and women together, not in antagonism, but in comradeship,
strive on till we have built up a better civilisation than any that the
world has known. For surely just as those children are fortunate who
have two parents, a mother and a father, to care for them, so is the
nation fortunate that has its mothers and its fathers, its brothers and
its sisters, working together for the common good.
THE END
INDEX
A
Aberdeen _Free Press_, 180
Abernethy meeting, 451
Act of Charles II, 197
Ainsworth, Miss, 441
Albert Hall demonstration, 445;
first great meeting, 209;
meeting, 41, 242, 464
Aldwych theatre, 367
Allen, Mary, 395
Amery, L. S., 232
Anderson, Dr. Garrett, 243, 502
Anti-Corn Law League, 4
Anti-Government by-election policy, 96
Anti-Suffrage Society first organised, 147
Appeal of Pankhurst and Haverfield, 467
Archdale, Mrs., 451, 453
Arrest of Alice Milne, 127;
Arnold Cutler, 331;
Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney, 29;
Daisy Solomon, 364;
deputation at Official Residence, 64;
Irene Miller, 64;
Isabel Kelley, 423;
Lady Constance Lytton, 449;
Mrs. Baines, 130, 325;
Mrs. Despard, 361;
Mrs. Lawrence, 364;
Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Haverfield, 386;
Victor Duval, 500
Arrests at Birmingham, 428;
at Bolton, 463;
at Colston Hall, 461;
at Crewe, 463;
at Fifth Women's Parliament, 270;
at Guild Hall, 459;
at Leicester, 422;
at Lime House, 409;
at Liverpool, 463;
at Manchester, 88;
at Northampton, 85;
at opening of Parliament, 103;
at Rochester Row, 107;
at Third Women's Parliament, 196;
at Waterloo, 463;
in Feb., 1907, 139;
on March 20, 1907, 155;
on June 30, 1908, 254
Asquith, Right Hon. Henry Herbert, 222, 360, 384, 419, 426, 446, 459,
464, 475, 479, 496;
at Northampton, 81;
letter to, 83;
his "prisoners," 96;
becomes Prime Minister, 222;
views on Stanger Bill, 234;
his windows stoned, 253;
waylaid at Lympne, 420
Ashton, Margaret, 73, 224
Attercliffe by-election, 377
Ayrton, Mrs. Hertha, 438, 502
B
Baines, Mrs. Jennie, 130, 405, 447, 483;
arrest of, 325;
trial of, 326 _et seq._
Bairstow, Mr., 326
Baker, Mrs., 411
Balfour, Lady Betty, 438
Balfour, Sir Arthur, 8, 15, 18, 40, 129, 499
Balcarres, Lord, 371, 502
Balgarnie, Florence, 233
Banbury, Sir F. G., 219
Bateson, Mrs. Mary, 75
Battersea, a typical meeting, 99;
campaign, 100;
meeting at, 328
Baxter, Sir G., 231
Beales, Edmund, 79
Becker, Lydia, 4, 489
Bedford Corn Exchange, 406
Beerbohm, Max, 285
Bell, Capt. Morrison, 184
Bennett, Curtis, 143, 272, 273, 276, 280, 281, 286, 476
Benson, Mrs. Godfrey, 324
Benson, T. D., letter from, 89
Bermondsey by-election, 456
Berwick Women's Liberal Ass'n, 438
Bertram, Julius, 127
Bill for the Enfranchisement of Women first prepared, 8
Bill introduced by Dickinson, 147
Billington, Theresa, 41, 65, 80, 97
Bingley Hall Meeting, 426
Birmingham, arrests at, 428;
_Daily Mail_, 33;
meeting at, 328;
prison, 431;
Women's Liberal Ass'n, 438
Birrell, Mr., 340, 421, 505
Black, W. G., 146
Blake, Lady, 438
Boggart Hole Clough demonstration, 175
Bourchier, Dr. Helen, 192, 194
Bovey Tracey meeting, 182
Bow Street Police Court, trials at, 254;
trial of three leaders, 271;
imprisonment of three leaders, 266
Brackenbury, Georgina, 196
Brackenbury, Marie, 196, 292, 407
Brackenbury, Mrs., 502
Brackenbury, Sir Henry, 196
Bradford, meeting at, 328;
Shipley Glen meeting, 257
Brailsford, H. N., 437, 456, 489
Brailsford, Mrs. J. E. M., 448, 449
Bramley, F., 146
Branch, Mrs., 438
Brand, Bessie, 405
Brand, Sir David, 405
Brawling Bill, 370, 372
Brewster, Bertha, 379, 443
Bright, Jacob, 4
Bright, John, 313
Bristol prison, 461
_British Medical Journal_, 435
Brown, Amelia, 459
Brown, Kathleen, 448
Bryce, J., 146
Bull, Sir William, 203
Burkitt, Hilda, 441
Burns, John, 78, 99, 203, 277, 314, 367, 428
Burns, Lucy, 409, 411, 417
Bury St. Edmunds by-election, 165
Butler, Josephine, 55, 96
Buxton, Sidney, 177, 184, 407
By-election at Attercliffe, 377;
Bermondsey, 456;
Bury St. Edmunds, 165;
Chelmsford, 349;
Cleveland, 423;
Croydon, 377;
Colne Valley, 163;
Dumfriesburgh, 425;
East Edinburgh, 377;
Forfar, 377;
Glasgow, 377;
Haggerston, 257;
Hawick Burghs, 377;
Hexham, 157;
Hull, 181;
Jarrow, 161;
Mid-Devon, 181;
Newcastle, 257;
Oakham, 159;
Peckham, 212;
Pembrokeshire, 257;
Rutland, 157;
Sheffield, 377;
South Aberdeen, 146;
South Edinburgh, 377;
South Hereford, 188;
Stratford-on-Avon, 377;
Stirling Burghs, 238;
Uppingham, 160;
Wimbledon, 169
By-election policies, 95 _et seq._
By-elections and policies of Suffragettes, 166;
results of, 166
C
Cabinet meetings invaded, 176
Cabinet Ministers called upon, 191
Campbell, Rev. R. J., 341, 438
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 40, 150, 222;
at Sun Hall meeting, 50;
evades deputation, 63;
heckled at
Dunfermline, 175;
receives deputation, 76
Campaign at Battersea, 99;
Cockermouth, 92;
East Fife, 97;
Edinburgh, 174;
Jarrow, 161;
Mid-Devon, 182;
Peckham, 214;
in Wales, 97;
of Oct., 1905, 24 _et seq._;
of 1906, 40 _et seq._
Canford Park, 413
Capper, Mabel, 409
Carpenter, W. B., 231
Carson, Sir Edward, 372
Castioni case, the, 396
Caxton Hall, meeting, 57;
Parliament, 138;
Second Women's Parliament, 152;
Third Women's Parliament, 192;
Fifth Women's Parliament, 266
Cecil, Lord Robert, 123, 129, 203, 351, 389, 468, 470
Central office opened, 133
Chains and padlocks, 329
Chamberlain, Joseph, 314
Chapin, Mrs., 458
Chaplin, Henry, 169, 172
Chapman, Hugh, 396
Chatterton, Ada, 155
Cheetham Hill meeting, 43
Chelmsford by-election, 349
Chelsea, meeting at, 328
Chesterton, G. K., 13
Chorlton Board of Guardians, 6
Christmas in Holloway gaol, 132
Churchill, Lord Randolph, 313, 362, 413
Churchill, Winston, 27, 133, 219, 224, 253, 405, 422, 450, 452, 460,
461, 493, 495;
campaign against, 43 _et seq._;
at Cheetham meeting, 44;
at Dundee, 227
Clarke, Charles G., 219
Clarkson, Florence, 405, 443, 444
Clayton, Joseph, 361
Classification of Holloway gaol prisoners, 125
Cleveland by-election, 423
Clifton, Durdham Downs meeting, 257
Clive, Capt. Percy A., 189
Clothing furnished in Holloway gaol, 111
Clyde, Constance, 155
Cobbett, William, 390
Cobden, Richard, 102
Cockermouth by-election, 92
Colne Valley by-election, 163
Coleridge, Lord, 4
Collecting funds, 208
Colston Hall meeting, 461
Conciliation Bill, 491
Conciliation Committee, 489
Conolly, Dr., 432
Constable, A. H. B., 232
Contrasting policies of Suffragists and Suffragettes, 172
Cook, Mrs. Kennindale, 192
Cooke, Florence, 394
Cooper, Dr. George, 180, 457
Corbett, Mrs. Frank, 451, 453
Craig, Dr. Maurice, 477
Cremer speech against Suffrage Resolution, 68
Crewe, Lord, 416, 417
Croft, Edward, 144
Crombie, W. J., 232
Croydon by-election, 377
Cuckfield resolution, 237
Curran, Peter, 163
Cust, H. J. Cockayne, 457
Cutler, Arnold, 331
D
_Daily Chronicle_, 198, 239
_Daily Mail_, 33, 214, 216
_Daily Mirror_, Northampton, 86
_Daily News_, 157, 180, 183, 237, 248
_Daily Telegraph_, 388
Davidson, Dr. W. A., 435
Davies, Emily, 73, 243
Davies, Llewellyn, 52
Davison, Emily Wilding, 454, 478
DeLegh, Miss, 416
Demonstration at Boggart Hole Clough, 175;
of protest on June 30, 1908, 250;
of the unemployed, 263
Deputations to Mr. Asquith, 81 _et seq._
De Rutzen, Sir Albert, 192, 364, 367, 390, 468
Despard, Mrs., 102, 361, 475
Dewsbury, 231
Dickinson Bill, 147
Dickinson, Sarah, 6, 53, 73
Disguises utilised, 41
Disorders at Newton Abbot, 185
Dove-Wilcox, Mrs., 397, 401 _et seq._
Drage, Jeffrey, 425
Drummond, Flora, 48
Drummond, Mrs., 226, 446;
arrest of, 64;
opening London campaign, 56;
at Eye by-election, 67;
at third attack upon the House, 131;
at Peckham, 218;
at the great Hyde Park meeting, 241;
in own defence at Bow Street, 320;
in Holloway gaol, 333
Dumfries, Mr., 457
Dumfriesburgh by-election, 425
Dundee election, 227
Dunfermline, heckling at, 175
Duval, Victor, 500
E
East Anglican _Daily Times_, 388
East Edinburgh by-election, 377
East Fife campaign, 97
Eckford, Miss, 405
Edinburgh campaign, 174;
political pageant, 445
Edwards, Miss, 441
Egbaston Woman's Liberal Ass'n, 438
Ejected from House of Commons, 70
Election address of Hon. Bertrand Russell, 171;
at Dundee, 228;
at North West Manchester, 224;
pledges, 179
Elmy, Mrs. Wolstenholme, 16, 72
Ervine, St. John G., 221
Esler, Dr. Robert, 220
Esperance Working-Girl's Club, 59
Esslemont, G. B., 146
Evans, Samuel, 69, 98, 326
Eve, H. T., 184
_Evening News_, 199
_Evening Standard_, 33
Exeter Hall meeting, 133
Exhibition at Prince's Skating Rink, 375
Eye by-election, 66
F
Farrell, Mr. (M. P.), 332
Fawcett, Mrs. Henry, 146
Fenton, Dr. Hugh, 456
Fenton, William Hugh, 434, 477
Fenwick, Irene, 61
Fifth Women's Parliament, 266
Figner, Vera, 436
Finch, H. G., 161
First Albert Hall meeting, 209
First Anti-Suffrage Society organised, 147
First arrest of Mrs. Pankhurst, 202
First arrests, 29
First imprisonments, 31;
comments on, 33 _et seq._
First Women's Suffrage open-air meeting in London, 79
Folliero, Cemino, 155
Food in Holloway gaol, 125
Forcible feeding, 433, 440, 454, 461, 481
Fordham, Mr., 401
Foreign Office, Deputation at, 73
Forfar by-election, 377
Formation of Women's Freedom League, 173
Fowler, Sir H., 232
Fraser, Foster, 128
_Free Press_, Aberdeen, 180
Free Trade Hall, Manchester, meeting, 133
G
Gannell, S. G., 231
Gannell, S. J., 232
Gardner, Alan C., 189
Garnett, Theresa, 379 _et seq._, 460
Gasson, Mrs., 74
Gautrey, T., 219
Gawthorpe, Mary, in Wales, 98;
early life, 99;
at Uppingham, 160;
ejected from House of Commons, 102, 222, 446
General election of 1906, 40;
of 1910, 488
Gibson, Flora, 50
Gladstone, Herbert, 69, 124, 141, 178, 205, 240, 253, 278, 293, 314,
331, 371, 383, 395, 397, 404, 419, 435, 455
Glasgow by-election, 377;
_Evening Times_, 198;
St. Andrew's Hall meeting, 51
Gooch, C. A., 219, 221
Gordon, Dr. Mary, 256
Gore-Booth, Eva, 6, 53, 73
Goulden, Emmeline, 3 _et seq._
Gretton, J., 161
Grey, Sir Edward, 25, 26, 193, 464
Guest, Hon. F., 93
Guild Hall arrests, 459
Guinness, Hon. W., 165
H
Haggerston by-election, 257
Haig, Dr. Alexander, 43
Haig, Florence, 195, 196
Haldane, Mr., 177, 418, 499
Hall, Leslie, 480, 482
Hambro, C. E., 172
Hammersmith, meeting at, 328
Harberton, Lady, 152
Harcourt, Lewis, 178, 405, 463
Harcourt, R. V., 232
Hardie, Keir, 8, 12, 17, 18, 55, 67, 127, 129, 135, 371, 383, 433,
435, 502
Hardy, Dr. Mabel, 155
Harraden, Beatrice, 243
Harvey, Capt. F. W., 165
Haverfield, Mrs., 389, 467
Hawick Burghs by-election, 377
Hay, Claud, 141
Hazleton, Mr. (M.P.), 371
Heallis, Georgina, 419, 443
Heally, Timothy, 476
Heckling Campbell-Bannerman, 175
Henle, Mr., 389
Hexham by-election, 155
Holloway Gaol, 86, 109 _et seq._, 332, 410;
prisoners released from, 97;
life in, 115 _et seq._;
classes of prisoners in, 124 _et seq._;
food in, 125;
sickness in, 255;
three leaders released from, 356;
Miss Wallace-Dunlop fasts in, 392
Holloway, Mr. Justice, 470
Holme, Vera, 383
Horsley, Sir Victor, 434, 477
House of Commons first closed to women, 58
Housman, Clemence, 208
Housman, Lawrence, 387
Howard, Geoffrey, 365, 489
Howard's Bill, 366
Howells, W. D., 376
Howey, Elsie, 256, 367, 419, 483
Howey, Rose, 412
Huddersfield by-election, 127;
meeting, 257, 328
Hudson, Miss, 479
Hughes, Mrs. Hugh Price, 59
Hughes, Spencer Leigh, 71, 163
Hull by-election, 181
Hunger strike, 392, 419
Hunt, Violet, 208
Hutton, Alfred, 239
Hyde Park, great demonstration, 241 _et seq._
Hyde, Sir Clarendon, 504
I
Idris, T. H. W., 269
Imprisonment, first, 31
Independent Labor party, 5, 7
Independent by-election policy, 95
Indignation meeting at Cheetham Hill, 47
Innes, P. Rose, 163
Invasion of Cabinet meetings, 176
Ipswich meeting, 348
J
Jacobs, George, 501
Jarrow by-election, 161
Jarvis, Inspector, 265, 273, 278, 385, 467
Joachim, Maud, 196, 453
Jolly, Miss C., 451, 453
Joynson-Hicks, Mr., 226
K
Keevil, Gladice, 202
Kelley, Isabel, 422
Kendall, James, 89
Kenney, Annie, early life, 19;
at the Manchester meeting, 27;
first arrested, 29;
trial, 30;
at the Albert Hall meeting, 41;
sets off to rouse London, 54;
member London Committee, 61;
arrested, 64;
at Trafalgar Square, 80;
in East Fife, 97;
at Jarrow, 162;
again arrested, 202;
at Albert Hall meeting, 211;
and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 222;
at North Bristol, 340;
at Queen's Hall, 357;
at Canfield Park, 413
Kenney, Jessie, 322, 362, 419, 464
Kensington, 242
Kerr, Miss, 322
Kerr, Thomas, 417
Kincardineshire, 231
Kinnaird Hall meeting, 453
Kirby, Dr. Ernest Dormer, 477
Knightsbridge, 372
L
Lambert, Lena, 253
_Lancet, The_, 432
Law, Hugh, 383
Lawrence, Mrs. Pethick, 58, 61;
in Yorkshire, 97;
at Parliament opening, 1906, 101;
publishes _Women's Franchise_, 174;
at Albert Hall meeting, 212;
and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 222;
and the great Hyde Park demonstration, 241;
writes to Lloyd-George, 259;
in Clement's Inn office, 322;
arrested and imprisoned, 364;
speaks at Aldwych theatre, 368;
at Prince's Skating Rink, 373;
raising funds, 501
Lawson, R. G., 436
Lawson, Sir Wilfred, 93
Leaders arrested, 264
Leeds, Herbert Gladstone at, 178;
meeting at Woodhouse Moor, 257
Leicester meeting, 257
Leigh, Mrs. Mary, 155, 253, 254, 281, 339, 356, 375, 410, 418, 426,
439, 447, 459
Leigh, Spencer, 457
Letter from T. D. Benson, 89
Levy, Sir Maurice, 151
Lewis, Windsor, 425
_Liberal Daily Chronicle_, 142
Life in Holloway gaol, 117 _et seq._
Lime House, Lloyd-George at, 407 _et seq._
Linnell, Alfred, 79
Littlehampton, 59
Liverpool _Courier_, 418, 421
Liverpool, Sun Hall meeting, 50
Lloyd-George, Mr., 51, 81, 178, 252, 258, 259, 267, 276, 281, 340,
342, 407, 447, 448, 478, 491
London _By-Stander_, 216
London Committee organised, 60
London _Daily Chronicle_, 248;
_Daily Express_, 248;
_Daily News_, 221, 436, 445;
_Daily Telegraph_, 220;
_Globe_, 347;
_Standard_, 216, 236, 248, 347;
_Star_, 218, 237;
_Times_, 248, 258, 424
London, opening of campaign in 1906, 54
Long, Walter, 17, 267
Long's Bill for relief of unemployed, 17
Louth town-hall meeting, 479
Lyon, W. F., 161
Lytton, Lady Constance, 300, 364, 447, 483
Lytton, Lord, 489, 500
M
McClellan, Miss, 362
McLaren, Eva, 73
McLaren, Lady, 343
McLaren, Sir Charles, 73, 151, 365
McNeill, R., 146
Macaulay, Miss F. E., 301
MacDonald, Mrs. Meredith, 364
MacDougal, Mrs. August, 130
Macquire, Dr. Miller, 306
Maidenhead meeting, 349
Maloney, Miss, 228
Manchester, campaign of 1906, 48, 87;
Churchill at Free Trade Hall, 133;
_Courier_, 388;
_Daily Despatch_, 389;
demonstration at Boggart Hole Clough, 175;
_Evening Standard_, 33;
_Guardian_, 187, 224, 256, 347;
Heaton Park meeting, 257;
meeting at, 24, 328;
protest of members from, 129;
"riot," 18
Manchester Women's Suffrage Committee, 4, 5
Mansell-Moullin, Dr. C., 434, 477
Margate Women's Liberal Ass'n, 341
Marion, Kitty, 448
Married Women's Property Committee, 4
Marsden, Dora, 367, 446, 462
Marsh, Charlotte, 431, 465
Martel, Mrs. Nellie Alma, 13, 16, 61, 185
Martin, Selina, 480, 482
Martyn, Mrs. How, 103
Marylebone Police Court, 193
Massy, Col., 300
Masterman, Mr., 433
Matters, Muriel, 329, 363
May, Mrs., 300
Mechanics' Hall, Jarrow, 162
Meeting at Bovey Tracey, 182;
at Caxton Hall, 57;
Cheetham Hill, 43;
Durdham Downs, Clifton, 257;
Heaton Park, 257;
Huddersfield, 257;
Ipswich, 348;
Leicester, 257;
Maidenhead, 349;
Newcastle, 258;
Peckham Rye, 212;
Rawtenstall, 257;
St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, 51;
Sheffield Drill Hall, 51;
Shipley Glen, 257;
Sun Hall, Liverpool, 50;
Woodhouse Moor, 257;
of protest in House of Commons lobby, 102
Mid-Devon by-election, 181
Militant tactics, inauguration of, 27
Miller, Irene, 64, 103
Milne, Alice, 127
Montrose Boroughs, 232
Mooney, Mr. (M.P.), 371
Morley, J., 232
Morley, Lord, 446
Morrissey, Mrs., 129
Moxey, Dr. Anderson, 432
"Mud March," 135
Munro, Miss, 193
Murphy, Agnes, 305
Murray, A., 231
Murray, Dr. Flora, 435
Murray, James, 304
Murray, Mr. (M.P.), 266
Muskett, Inspector, 272 _et seq._, 389
N
Naylor, Marie, 195, 196
Neal, Mary, 59, 61
Neilans, Miss Allison, 458
Neligan, Miss, 383, 502
Nevison, Henry, 300, 437, 456
New, Miss, 191, 253
Newcastle by-election, 257
Newton Abbot campaign, 182
Ninth Women's Parliament, 380
Non-Militant Suffragettes in 1906 campaign, 52
North Bristol, 340
North London Police Court, 398
North West Manchester election, 224
Northampton, Asquith at, 81;
_Daily Mirror_, 86
O
Oakham by-election, 159
Officers of Women's Freedom League, 173
Official Residence, 61;
closed to deputation, 63
Ogston, Helen, 344, 349
O'Hanlon, J., 163
Oldham Independent Labour Party, 19
Open-air meeting, first in London, 79
Opening of Parliament, autumn, 1908, 261
Organising the great Hyde Park demonstration, 241
Original Women's Enfranchisement Bill, 10 _et seq._
Osler, Catherine C., 437
P
_Pall Mall Gazette_, 216
Palmer, Sir C. M., 163
Pankhurst, Adela, 103, 405, 417, 451, 453
Pankhurst, Christabel, early life, 5, _et seq._;
at Manchester meeting, 29;
first arrested, 29;
convicted and imprisoned, 31;
in prison, 36;
at Cheetham Hill meeting, 45;
reply to Mr. Asquith, 235;
again arrested, 263;
Bow Street trial, 271 _et seq._;
speaks in own defence, 306;
in Holloway gaol, 33;
released from Holloway, 356
Pankhurst, Dr. Richard Marsden, 4, 37 _et seq._
Pankhurst, Harry, 48
Pankhurst, Mrs., marriage, 5;
at opening of Parliament, 1906, 102;
attacked at Newton Abbot, 186;
first arrested, 202;
trial at Westminster Police Court, 204;
at Peckham, 218;
delegation excluded from House of Commons, 250;
again arrested, 263;
Bow Street trial, 271 _et seq._;
speaks in own defence at Bow Street, 315;
in Holloway gaol, 333;
released from Holloway, 356;
appeals under Act of Charles II, 467 _et seq._;
leads deputation to House of Commons, 501
Parliament, autumn session of 1906, 101 _et seq._;
of 1908, 260;
proceedings over Dickinson Bill, 151
Paul, Alice, 416, 417, 459
Peacock, William, 26
Pearson, Harold, 66, 161
Peckham by-election, 212
Pembrokeshire by-election, 257
Pethick, Dorothy, 435, 448
Pethick, Henry, 58
Peters, Naici, 155
Phillips, Mary, 253, 376, 412
Pickford, Justice, 327
Pitt, Lane Fox, 327
Pledge of Women's Freedom League, 173
Plural Voting Bill, 76, 129
Police outrages at Northampton, 85
Powell, Sir Richard Douglas, 436, 477
Preston meeting, 463
Private Members Reform Bill, 365
Prince's skating rink, 372
Protest, first meeting of, 16;
of Manchester members, 129
Provincial meetings, 257
Public Meeting Bill, 351
Publication of _Votes for Women_, 174;
of _Women's Franchise_, 174
R
Raid on House of Commons, 140
Rainy, Mrs. Rolland, 73
Randles, Sir John, 93
Rawtenstall meeting, 257
Redmond, John, 69
Redmond, Willie, 69
Reform Act of 1884, 78
Reid, Mrs. S., 438
Release from Holloway gaol, 127
Remnant, Mrs., 329
Rendall, Sergeant-Major, 187
Results of by-elections of 1907, 166
_Review of Reviews_, 71
Rigby, Mrs., 198
Robertson, E., 231
Robertson, J. M., 148
Robins, Elizabeth, 99, 243
Robinson, Rona, 443, 446
Robson, Henry, 231
Robson, Sir William, 326
Roe, Mrs. Lucy, 55
Rochester Row Police Court, 104
Rochfort, Henri, 3
Rochfort, Noémie, 3
Roper, Esther, 6
Rosebery, Lord, 253
Rossendale Valley, 178, 463
Ross by-election, 189
Ross, Dr. Forbes, 434
Rothera, C. L., 406
Royal College of Art, 11
Rutland by-election, 157
Runciman, Mr., 231, 454, 499
Runciman, Sir Walter, 448
"Rush" defined, 310
Rushpool Hall, 415
Russell, Bertrand, 169, 172
Russell, Dr., 432
S
St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, 51, 416
Salter, Dr., 457
Samuel, Herbert, 406, 422, 423, 425
Sanderson, Mrs. Cobden, 102, 104, 475, 502
Scantlebury, Inspector, 250, 384
_Scotsman, The_, 388
Scottish Churches Bill, 18
Scottish women contend for enfranchisement, 358
Scrymageour, E., 231
Second term in Holloway gaol, 144
Sentences in Bow Street Police Court, 281
Seventh Women's Parliament, 364
Shackleton, E., 231
Shallard, Dorothy, 448
Sharp, Evelyn, 208, 243, 301
Shaw, Dr. Anna, 243
Sheffield Drill Hall meeting, 51
Sherwood, Arthur, 128
Shipley Glen meeting, 257
Sickert, Mrs. Cobden, 104
Simons, Margaret Travers, 269
Sinclair, May, 208
Slack, Bamford, 11
Smillie, Robert, 93, 94
Smith, A. D., 231
Smith, Frank, 55
Smith, Horace, 104, 203, 292, 294
Smith, Margaret, 417
Smith, Miss Fraser, 423
Smith, Olivia, 191
Smith, Thorley, 53
Snowden, Mr., 498
Solomon, Daisy, 362, 364
Solomon, Mrs. Saul, 366, 383
Sothall, Gertrude E., 437
South Aberdeen by-election, 146
South African war, 17
South Edinburgh by-election, 377
Southport meeting, 462
Sparborough, Mrs., 85
Spiridonova, Marie, 91
Spong, Florence, 393
Spratt, Col., 232
Stanger, H. Y., 204
Statute of Charles II, 379, 468
Steel, Flora Annie, 438
Stewart, G. H., 231
Stirling Burghs by-election, 238
Strangeways gaol, 422, 454, 478
Strangeways, H. B. T., 438
Stratford-on-Avon by-election, 377
Suffragists and Suffragettes, contrast of policies of, 172;
meeting at Albert Hall, 242;
new policy at by-elections, 166 _et seq._
Sun Hall meeting, 50, 418
Sussex _Daily News_, 71
Swansea, Lloyd-George heckled at, 259
T
Taylor, Paul, 87
Tennant, Dr., 432
Testimony of Herbert Gladstone, 293;
of Inspector Jarvis, 278;
of James Murray, M.P., 304;
of Lloyd-George, 282;
of Mary Brackenbury, 292;
of Superintendent Wells, 274
"The Sundial," 59
_The Nation_, 221
Thomas, Rev. J. M. Lloyd, 437
Thompson, Whitely, 189
Three leaders in Holloway gaol, 332
Thorley, Mr., 458
Thorne, G., 232
Thorne, Will, 262, 277, 281
Tickets to meetings refused, 40
Titterington, Mrs., 198
Tolson, Helen, 415
Trafalgar Square, 55, 79
Trial, at Manchester, 30;
at Marylebone Police Court, 194;
at Rochester Police Court, 104 _et seq._;
at Westminster Police Court, 142 _et seq._;
of Mrs. Pankhurst after first arrest, 204;
under the Act of Charles II, 198
Trials at Westminster Police Court, 155, 197
Tuke, Mrs., 322, 342, 393
Turner, B., 231
U
Unemployed, Bill for the relief of, 17;
Manchester uprising, 18
Unwin, Mrs. Cobden, 104
Uppingham by-election, 160
V
Victoria women enfranchised, 359
"Votes for Women" first adopted, 7, 8
_Votes for Women_, publication of, 174
W
"Wakes Week," 23
Wallace-Dunlop, Miss, 267, 337, 381, 391, 392
Wallasey Women's Liberal Ass'n, 341
Walton gaol, 479, 481, 484
Wales, campaign in, 98
Warton, Jane, 483
Wason Cathcart, 204
Watson, Mrs., 75
Waylaying the Council, 362
Webster, Alexander, 180
Wells, Supt. of Police, 274, 276
Wentworth, Vera, 412, 419
_Westminster Gazette_, 350
Westminster Police Court, 131, 142, 197, 204, 253
Wilkie, Alex., 231
Williams, T. R., 128
Wilson, J. H., 148
Wimbledon by-election, 169
Winslow, Dr. Forbes, 432, 435
Winson Green gaol, 433, 439, 465
Wolverhampton, 232
Women first refused admission to House of Commons, 58
Women's Disabilities Removal Bill, 4
Women's Enfranchisement Bill, Asquith's views on, 234;
discussed, 205 _et seq._
_Women's Franchise_, publication of, 174
Women's Franchise League, formation, 5
Women's Freedom League, 173, 328
Women's Liberal Federation, 5
Women's Social and Political Union, 7
Women's Suffrage Resolution placed in House of Commons, 67
Woodhouse, Sir J. T., 129
Woodlock, Patricia, 155, 367, 376
Wurrie, Evelyn, 443
Y
Yates, W. B., 165
Yorkshire _Weekly Post_, 388
Yoxall, Alice, 437
Z
Zangwill, Israel, 135
End of Project Gutenberg's The Suffragette, by Estelle Sylvia Pankhurst