THE LAST PHASE
"It consists of an influx—whence or why none can tell—of a wave of
vitality. It is as if from the central heart of life a ray broke
suddenly upon the world, inspiring men to feel deeply, to live
greatly, to do nobly. It makes men. It is not made by men."
Without belittling the importance of the wave of enthusiasm for women's
enfranchisement which swept over the English-speaking world in 1916, it
is impossible to disguise the fact that we in England won our battle
at the exact moment we did in consequence of the absolute necessity
under which the Government laboured of producing a new parliamentary
register and a new voting qualification for men. For this meant that a
real reform of the representation of the people was required; and the
previous stages of our political struggle had demonstrated that when
once the franchise question was dealt with by Parliament it would be
impossible any longer to neglect the claims of women.
It will be remembered that so long ago as 1892 Mr. A. J. Balfour had
said in a suffrage debate in Parliament:
"If any further alteration of the franchise is brought forward as
a practical measure, this question [the enfranchisement of women]
will again arise, menacing and ripe for solution, and it will not be
possible for this House to set it aside as a mere speculative plan
advocated by a group of faddists. Then you will have to deal with the
problem of women's suffrage, and deal with it in a complete fashion."
The moment which Mr. Balfour foresaw in 1892 had arrived in 1916. The
situation was briefly thus: The old register for the whole United
Kingdom, unrevised by the express direction of the Government since
the outbreak of the world war, contained the names of rather over
eight million men, of whom almost seven millions voted as "occupiers"
or householders. There were other qualifications, such as the lodger,
freehold, and University franchises; but they only accounted, between
them, for about a million voters in the three kingdoms. "Occupation"
was, therefore, by far the most important of the qualifications for the
exercise of the parliamentary franchise. To qualify as an "occupier"
it was, however, necessary to prove the unbroken occupation of the
qualifying premises for twelve months previous to the last 15th of
July. This obviously necessitated in some cases continuous residence
for nearly two years. From August, 1914, onwards at least five millions
of men, either actual or potential voters, had volunteered for the
Navy or Army, or had moved, in obedience to national demands, to
munition areas, or other places where they were required. Consequently
very large numbers had ceased to be "occupiers" in the sense legally
required to enable them to become, or remain, voters.
The Government and the country were therefore, in the third year of the
war, face to face with the impossible position that if circumstances
necessitated an appeal to the country there was in existence no
register of voters which could in any sense be looked upon as
representative of the manhood of the nation. The elderly, the infirm,
the shirker, the crank, who had remained at home evading military
service, and "the conscientious objector," would remain on the old and
obsolete register in full numerical strength; the young manhood of the
nation who were fighting for it in the Navy, or the Air Service, or on
the dreary swamps of Flanders, or the tremendous battlefields round
Ypres or on the Somme, would in large proportion have forfeited their
parliamentary votes in consequence of the services they were rendering
to their country. It was an intolerable situation. By-elections
which from time to time took place illustrated the extraordinarily
non-representative character of the old register. Candidates and agents
reported the existence of street after street in which only a handful
of voters remained. It would have been impossible to dissolve on such
a register, and even if it had been possible, Mr. Asquith had himself
declared that a Parliament elected on such a register would be "lacking
in moral sanction."
It will be remembered that the House elected in 1910 had passed an Act
limiting the duration of all future Parliaments to five years. If there
had been no war the dissolution must therefore have taken place by
1915; but as a General Election, except on sheer necessity, could not
be contemplated during the war, the operation of the five years' limit
was more than once suspended by legislation. This, however, was only
postponing the problem, and did not afford any solution of it.
Mr. Asquith's first War Cabinet had suddenly collapsed in May, 1915,
and had been succeeded by the first Coalition Government. Mr. Asquith
remained Prime Minister, but among his colleagues were now found
representatives of the three chief parties—Liberal, Conservative, and
Labour. Mr. Redmond, as leader of the Irish Nationalists, was also
asked to join it, but declined to do so. The changes involved in this
reconstitution of the Government were in several ways favourable to
the suffrage movement: not a few of our most bigoted opponents were
among the Liberals who were shed by Mr. Asquith when he formed his
Coalition Government, whilst among his new colleagues were now to be
found convinced suffragists, such as Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Bonar Law,
Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Lytton, Lord Selborne, Mr. Arthur Henderson,
etc. The formation of the coalition was favourable to us in another
sense. Party discipline and party passion had always been inimical to
our movement. "Yes, I am your friend, but I am not prepared to break up
my party in order to support you," said one party leader. "Yes, I am
your friend, but I tell you frankly, you must not count on my vote if
the success of women's suffrage would mean the withdrawal from public
life of my leader, Mr. Asquith," said another. I had been accustomed to
say of the two chief parties, Liberal and Conservative, that from the
suffrage point of view the first was an army without generals, and the
second was generals without an army. The Coalition gave us the immense
advantage of bringing these two indispensable elements of success
together, and parliamentary suffragists became equally strong in both
officers and men. The commander-in-chief, Mr. Asquith, was still our
opponent, but, as described in the last chapter, we began to see signs
that even he was prepared to recognize that he was beaten, and to ask
for an armistice.
When 1916 arrived no solution of the franchise problem had been found;
the creation of a new register before a General Election could be held
was generally recognized as necessary, but there were no signs of
agreement upon the principles on which it should be based. The end of
the war seemed as far off as ever. Compulsory military service for men
had been adopted, and this strengthened the demand for manhood suffrage
on the very reasonable ground that if a man could be compelled to offer
his life for his country, he should at least have some influence, as a
voter, in controlling the policy which might cause such a sacrifice to
be called for.
Contemporaneously with these events and new developments, Sir Edward
Carson and a group of his parliamentary supporters were urging with
considerable vigour that there should be a new franchise based on
military service. In a sense he had a strong position, for it was an
obvious absurdity that men offering their lives for their country
should incidentally to the fulfilment of that service be struck off the
parliamentary register, while every waster and do-nothing who managed
to stay at home maintaining his occupation franchise would have the
vote. We made some unsuccessful efforts to induce Sir Edward Carson so
to define his definition of "service" as to include the services of
women. Meanwhile, there was a great deal of discussion socially and in
the Press about the possibility of basing the vote on national service
of some kind.
On May 4th, 1916, we addressed a careful letter to Mr. Asquith on the
points raised by the obsolete register and the necessity for a new
one, and also for a new qualification for the franchise. We said that
nothing was farther from our intention than to press our claim at
such a moment if the Government was contemplating legislation simply
to replace on the register those men who had lost their qualification
in consequence of their service in the Navy or Army, or in munition
areas in parts of the country other than those where they had formerly
resided. But we stated that if the Government intended to meet the
situation by altering the whole basis of the parliamentary franchise
and founding it on national service, whether naval, military, or
industrial, we should then use our utmost endeavours to induce a
favourable consideration at the same time of the national services of
women. After referring to some of the very important work of women
during the war, we added:
"When the Government deals with the franchise, an opportunity will
present itself of dealing with it on wider lines than by the simple
removal of what may be called the accidental disqualification of a
large body of the best men in the country, and we trust that you may
include in your Bill clauses which would remove the disabilities
under which women now labour. An agreed Bill on these lines would, we
are confident, receive a very wide measure of support throughout the
country. Our movement has received very great accessions of strength
during recent months, former opponents now declaring themselves on
our side, or, at any rate, withdrawing their opposition. The change
of tone in the Press is most marked.... The view has been widely
expressed in a great variety of organs of public opinion that the
continued exclusion of women from representation will ... be an
impossibility after the war."
Mr. Asquith replied almost immediately.
"10, Downing Street,
"Whitehall, S.W.,
"_May 7th, 1916_.
"Dear Mrs. Fawcett,
"I have received your letter of the 4th. I need not assure you how
deeply my colleagues and I recognize and appreciate the magnificent
contribution which the women of the United Kingdom have made to the
maintenance of our country's cause.
"No such legislation as you refer to is at present in contemplation;
but if, and when, it should become necessary to undertake it, you
may be certain that the considerations set out in your letter will
be fully and impartially weighed without any prejudgment from the
controversies of the past.
"Yours very faithfully,
"H. H. Asquith."
This reply was, we considered, very much more encouraging than any
previous letter which we had received from Mr. Asquith. There were
some suffragists who did not fail to point out that it promised us
nothing. This we did not dispute, but we felt, all the same, that the
letter indicated that the turn of the tide in the suffrage direction
was taking effect, and that vessels which had long been high and dry on
the sandbanks of prejudice were beginning to be floated, and would soon
swing round.
On May 7th, Mr. Asquith had said in his letter, "no such legislation
as you refer to is at present in contemplation." Nevertheless, it
was plain two weeks later from the Prime Minister's replies to
questions in the House that this attitude had already been abandoned.
The Government then began a series of futile efforts to deal with
the problems presented by the situation just described by means of
"Special Register" Bills. None of these plans secured the support
of the House of Commons. Mr. Asquith shrank from the thorough-going
method of solving the problem by introducing a Reform Bill which
should frankly provide a new basis for the suffrage. Such a course, he
said, would bring the House "face to face with another most formidable
proposition," the question of women's suffrage. Sir Edward Carson was
meanwhile pressing for a new franchise giving the vote to all sailors,
soldiers, and airmen, on the ground of their services. The comment
of the Press on this was: "It is clear that the Bill cannot include
the soldiers and exclude the women." The hesitation and reluctance
of the Government to face the facts went on all through July. It
was the same attitude which had caused the fiasco of the Government
Bill in January, 1913 when an attempt had been made to pass a Reform
Bill at the tail-end of a Session already thirteen months long by
calling it a Registration Bill. On July 12th, 1916, Mr. Asquith said
that the Government, not having been able to find any practical and
non-controversial solution of the registration question, proposed that
the House itself should settle the matter. This was not a popular
method of proceeding, but the proposition was wrapped up with Mr.
Asquith's well-known skill as a master of parliamentary oratory; and
though the House grumbled it was not in revolt. A week later, however,
the same theme was expounded with much less than the Prime Minister's
tact by Mr. Herbert Samuel, another well-known antisuffragist, who
enraged the House of Commons by saying in effect the same thing as Mr.
Asquith, but in a manner which made it plain, even to the wayfaring
man, that it was because the difficulty was insoluble that the
Government requested the House of Commons to solve it. He set forth all
the difficulties. Something had got to be done; the old register was
useless; a new register on the old basis would be nearly as bad, since
it would disfranchise our fighting men; and therefore the House would
have to take up the difficult controversial points of women's suffrage,
plural voting, adult suffrage, and redistribution. The indignation of
the House on being told bluntly that the problem was handed to them
to solve because it was insoluble caused it to reject the Government
proposal; the matter was thrown back by the House to the Cabinet, who
were told to do their own job; they therefore began another period of
"lengthy consideration."
In the previous spring a leading member of our Executive Committee,
Miss Rathbone, now President of the N.U.S.E.C.,[7] had formed a
consultative committee of constitutional women's suffrage societies,
representative of twenty different organizations. This consultative
committee sought and obtained early in August an interview with Lord
Robert Cecil and Mr. Bonar Law. The deputation urged the necessity
for the enfranchisement of women in time for them to take part in the
election of the Parliament which would have to deal with the problems
of reconstruction after the war; they also repeated that if the new
register simply replaced on the roll of voters those men who had
forfeited their vote in consequence of their patriotic services, we
should not, during the war, raise the question of women's suffrage at
all; but if the whole basis of the suffrage were changed we should
press the consideration of women's claims with all the strength at our
command. Mr. Bonar Law expressed satisfaction with this attitude, but
asked if the suffrage societies would stand aside if the period of
residence required of future male voters was reduced from twelve months
to three. The reply was in the negative, because this change would in
reality be equivalent to a new suffrage, and would add many thousands
of men to the roll of voters. Lord Robert Cecil warmly supported
this view, and said that the reduction in the qualifying period would
constitute a long step towards manhood suffrage, and would seriously
injure the position of women if nothing were done for them at the same
time.
We were getting now very near the keep of the antisuffrage fortress.
We heard of very prolonged and ardent discussions in the Cabinet on
our question, during which the protagonists on our side were Mr. Lloyd
George, Lord Robert Cecil, and Mr. Arthur Henderson, representing
severally the Liberal, Conservative, and Labour Parties. Mr. Asquith
and other antisuffragists clung to the position of simply replacing
on the parliamentary register those men who had forfeited their vote
through ceasing to be occupiers. This, however, was but rumour. What
we knew as a positive fact was that the makeshift proposals brought
by the Government before Parliament were rejected one after another.
August 13th and 14th, 1916, were days of first-rate importance in the
history of our movement. On the 13th the _Observer_, the well-known
Conservative Sunday paper, up to that time a determined opponent
of women's enfranchisement, contained an editorial completely and
thoroughly withdrawing its opposition. Among other excellent things
the editor, Mr. Garvin, wrote: "Time was when I thought that men alone
maintained the State. Now I know that men alone never could have
maintained it, and that henceforth the modern State must be dependent
on men and women alike for the progressive strength and vitality of its
whole organization."
On the 14th Mr. Asquith, introducing yet another Special Register Bill,
announced in the House of Commons a similar change of view. After
acknowledging in a very handsome way the great national value of the
services rendered by women to their country during the war, saying
that these had been as effective as those of any other part of the
population, he added:
"It is true they cannot fight in the sense of going out with rifles
and so forth, but they fill our munition factories; they have aided in
the most effective way in the prosecution of the war. What is more—and
this is a point which makes a special appeal to me—they say, when the
war comes to an end, and when these abnormal, and of course to a large
extent transient, conditions have to be revised, and when the process
of industrial reconstruction has to be set on foot, have not the women
a special claim to be heard on the many questions which will arise
directly affecting their interests, and possibly meaning for them
large displacements of labour? I cannot think that this House will
deny that, and _I say quite frankly that I cannot deny that claim_."
We anxiously scanned these words, looking for loopholes from which
the Prime Minister might escape from giving his support in future to
the principle of women's suffrage; but we found none. This speech
in effect made the Liberal Party into a Suffrage Party; it therefore
indicated an enormous advance in the parliamentary history of our
movement.
Our future course at the time was not all quite such plain sailing
as it may appear now to those who only look back upon it. The skill
of the parliamentary leader consists in providing steps or ladders
from which his followers can advance from a more backward to a less
backward position without personal humiliation, and without calling for
moral courage as great as Mr. Garvin had shown when, in the leading
article already quoted, he said in so many words, "I formerly thought
so-and-so, and so-and-so; I was wrong." There were, accordingly,
conferences within the precincts of the House of Commons between
representatives of the suffrage societies and our leading parliamentary
supporters on such points as the most we could safely ask for, and the
least we could be induced to accept. At these conferences Sir John
Simon took a very leading part. When he was present we felt we had as
our ally a man of an extraordinarily alert intelligence, capable at
once of appreciating our point of view, and with unequalled readiness
in showing how it could be carried out. I remember his coming in
late at one of these conferences in a committee-room of the House of
Commons; we had been expounding a particular point to a group of
M.P.'s who seemed neither to understand its significance nor capable
of offering any suggestion as to its realization. The atmosphere
changed directly Sir John Simon took his seat at the table. "Yes, I
see the importance of your point," he said at once; "and you can give
effect to it," he added, taking the current Special Register Bill in
his hand, "by an amendment in line 5, clause 2. I will speak to the
Prime Minister about it this evening." It was an immense relief to our
anxieties to have a man of this practical and capable type working for
us. On August 22nd he handed in to the clerk at the table of the House
of Commons the following resolution; it never materialized, but it
indicated the line which an important group of our friends in the House
were taking, and the general agreement that had been arrived at by the
great majority of suffrage societies:
"That, in the opinion of the House, the Parliament to deal with
industrial and social reconstruction after the war should be elected
on a wide and simple franchise exercised by both men and women, and
therefore legislation establishing such franchise is urgently required
and should be passed during the war."
From this point onwards it is no exaggeration to say that Sir John
Simon was, from a parliamentary point of view, the organizer of
victory. The only real obstacle which now confronted us was the
plausible plea that, however desirable women's suffrage was in itself,
it was not the time during the most gigantic war in history to raise
this great question of constitutional reform. It was our business to
show that _now was the time_ when such a reform was not only desirable,
but absolutely necessary. The new register and the new qualification
were needed without delay unless millions of the best men in the
country were to be disfranchised on account of their national services.
Women should be included in the new register on the grounds given by
Mr. Asquith in the speech just quoted. When we were attacked, as we
were, by antisuffragists for our lack of patriotism for raising our
question during the war, we had an easy answer. We had not raised it.
It had raised itself as a consequence of the war and of the peculiar
character of the qualification laid down by former Parliaments for the
occupation franchise.
It was some time, however, before the Government itself grasped
the situation from this point of view. Before Parliament adjourned
for a short vacation in August, 1916, Mr. Walter Long, a typical
English country gentleman, then Colonial Secretary, a Conservative
and antisuffragist, made it clear that he too had withdrawn his
opposition to the enfranchisement of women. It was to him we owed
the suggestion that the whole question of the parliamentary register
and the qualifications for voting should be referred to a non-party
conference, consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament, and
presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons. He said, after
reciting the difficulties of the situation: "It is our duty, one and
all ... to set ourselves to find a solution which will be a lasting
settlement of a very old and difficult problem." Mr. Asquith concurred,
and, answering by anticipation those who argued that it was unpatriotic
during the war to be considering questions of franchise reform, said
that it was "eminently desirable" that those not actually absorbed in
the conduct of the war should work out a general agreement as regards
these difficult questions of parliamentary reform. The Electoral Reform
Conference, with the Speaker as chairman, was appointed in October,
1916, on the reassembling of both Houses after the recess. Of course
it was not only women's suffrage which it was asked to consider, but
the whole franchise question, including adult suffrage, plural voting,
proportional representation, etc. The Speaker, Mr. J. Lowther, had a
high reputation for fairness, for great personal tact and courtesy,
for humour, and all which it stands for in the management of men, but
he was believed to be a strong antisuffragist. The question of women
was not emphasized in Parliament when the conference was appointed,
but there can be no doubt that it was the real motive power which
had created it. The members of the conference were of all parties
and of both Houses, and, according to the Speaker's knowledge and
belief, suffragists and antisuffragists were given an equal number
of representatives on it. I always said that it was an illustration
of the intense strength and vitality of our movement that, though the
conference was proposed by one antisuffragist (Mr. Long), supported
by another (Mr. Asquith), and presided over by a third (the Speaker),
yet, as a result of its deliberations, some measure of women's
enfranchisement was recommended by a large majority of its members. The
conference, in fact, provided one of those ladders, referred to on a
previous page, which enable men to escape gracefully from an untenable
position. It held its first meeting on October 12th, 1916. Sir John
Simon was a member of it, and a remarkably skilful leader on our side.
He was ably supported by Mr. (now Sir) W. H. Dickinson, Mr. Aneurin
Williams, Sir William Bull (Conservative), and Mr. Goldstone (Labour).
The deliberations were kept absolutely secret. The N.U.W.S.S. asked to
be allowed to give evidence. The request was declined. We then drew
up a memorandum emphasizing the chief points on which we had desired
to give evidence. A copy of this was sent to every member of the
conference. A large number of resolutions from political associations,
town councils, women's societies, trade unions, trade and labour
councils, etc., supporting the claims of women to representation were
also sent to the Speaker as chairman of the conference. The report was
not published until January 28th, 1917. But the mere existence of the
conference began to influence the action of Parliament much earlier
than this. On November 12th, the last of the Government's Special
Register Bills was withdrawn. The Bill was condemned by the House
because the Speaker ruled all widening amendments out of order, and as
the House desired widening amendments the Bill collapsed.
In the interval, before the conference had reported, the whirligig
of time brought about another Cabinet crisis, which was eminently
favourable to us. Mr. Asquith's Government fell, and in mid-December
Mr. Lloyd George became Prime Minister. On Christmas Day, 1916, I
received a letter from a very important public man, who told me that
now was the psychological moment for taking a forward step in the
direction of the immediate enfranchisement of women. He had angered me
by assuming that, because we had not rioted, and had throughout the
war only sought to serve our country, we had done nothing. So I told
him in outline what we had done, and why we had done it. He replied:
"I am going to read your letter at the Prime Minister's to-morrow."
On December 27th I heard from him again. "I talked for some time last
night with the Prime Minister, who is very keen on the subject [of
women's suffrage], and very practical too." After this I knew our
victory in the immediate future was secured, however the Speaker's
conference reported.
It was at first questioned whether the Cabinet crisis and the formation
of a new Government would not mean the suspension of the work of the
Speaker's conference. But in answer to a specific enquiry the new Prime
Minister emphatically expressed his desire that the conference should
continue its labours. After three and a half months' work the report of
the conference was placed in Mr. Lloyd George's hands. It unanimously
recommended thirty-three very drastic reforms in the franchise, the
most important of which were to base the parliamentary franchise for
men on residence and not on "occupation," the adoption of proportional
representation, and a great simplification of the Local Government
Register. On women's suffrage the conference was not unanimous, but
by a majority, which we were privately assured was considerable, it
recommended that some form of women's suffrage should be conferred.[8]
This was hailed with almost universal enthusiasm by the Press. There
was a general chorus of approbation and congratulation.
The changes in the franchise for men amounted in effect almost to
manhood suffrage; but the suffrage for women which was recommended
amounted practically to household suffrage for women, with a higher
age limit than that fixed for men. For purposes of the franchise women
were to be reckoned as "householders," not only when they were so in
their own right, but also when they were the wives of householders.
There was some outcry against this on the part of ardent suffragists as
being derogatory to the independence of women. While understanding this
objection, I did not share it; I felt, on the contrary, that it marked
an important advance in that it recognized in a practical political
form a universally accepted and most valuable social fact—namely,
the partnership of the wife and mother in the home. We did object
to, and strongly protested against, the absurdly high age limit for
women (thirty to thirty-five) suggested by the Speaker's conference,
especially on the ground that a very large proportion of the women
working industrially would be thereby disfranchised. It is only fair,
however, to mention the motive which had prompted this recommendation.
One main objection of the antisuffragists to our enfranchisement was
that the number of women in this country was about one and a half
million in excess of the number of men. It was therefore plausible,
although fallacious, to say that women's suffrage would result in
making over the government of the country to women. What was desired
by the friends of women's suffrage in the Speaker's conference was
accordingly the creation of a constituency in which women, though
substantially represented, would not be in a majority. The changes in
the representation of men would, it was believed, raise the number of
men on the register from eight to ten millions; while the number of
women enfranchised, as householders and wives of householders, would
not, as it was thought, be more than six or seven millions. This, it
was correctly anticipated, the House of Commons would accept with
practical unanimity, whilst the fate of a wider franchise would be, to
say the least, doubtful. The thirty years age limit for women was quite
indefensible logically; but it was practically convenient in getting
rid of a bogie whose unreality a few years' experience would probably
prove by demonstration. We remembered Disraeli's dictum, "England is
not governed by logic, but by Parliament."
A similar but more objectionable method of reducing mechanically the
number of women voters had been adopted in Norway in 1907, and had
lasted for six years, after which women were placed on the register
on terms exactly the same as those for men. Events in the Session of
1919 show that it is very unlikely that the higher age limit for women
will be maintained in Great Britain for so long a time. It may here be
mentioned that the actual numbers both of men and women enfranchised by
the Reform Act of 1918 turned out to be larger than had been calculated
when the Bill was before Parliament. On the first register compiled in
1918 there were over 7,000,000 women, and the official figures of the
number of men and women on the revised register published in 1919 were:
men electors, 12,913,160; women, 8,479,156.
From the date of the presentation of the report of the Speaker's
conference our parliamentary success went forward rapidly, smoothly,
and without check. On March 29th the Prime Minister received a
great deputation of women war workers, organized by the N.U.W.S.S.,
representing every possible form of active service by which women had
worked for their country during the war. The deputation also had the
support of between thirty and forty women's organizations, including
nearly all the existing suffrage societies, besides such well-known
bodies as the British Women's Temperance Association, the National
Union of Women Workers, the National Organization of Girls' Clubs,
and the Women's Co-operative Guild, etc. It had been the intention
of this deputation to ask the Prime Minister to introduce without
delay legislation based on the recommendations of the Speaker's
conference. But we found ourselves in the joyful position of being
a day after the fair; for on the previous evening in the House of
Commons Mr. Asquith had moved a resolution calling for the early
introduction of a Bill on these lines. The whole debate which followed
had dealt, not exclusively, but very nearly so, with the question of
the enfranchisement of women. Mr. Asquith had again emphasized his
conversion, had compared himself with Stesichorus, who had been smitten
with blindness for insulting Helen of Troy, adding, "Some of my friends
may think that, like him, my eyes, which for years in this matter
have been clouded by fallacies and sealed by illusions, at last have
been opened to the truth." In the debate which followed every leader
of every party, Conservative, Liberal, Labour, and Irish Nationalist,
supported the enfranchisement of women, thus foreshadowing the Agreed
Bill for which the N.U.W.S.S. had asked in the previous May. Mr. Lloyd
George, the new Prime Minister, took an important part in the debate,
speaking with all his accustomed vigour and fervour on our side. The
opposition was almost non-existent, and Mr. Asquith's motion was
agreed to by 341 votes to 62. The practical unanimity of the House
was reflected by a similar unanimity in the Press (the three _Posts_,
however, see p. 79, still holding the antisuffrage fort). The general
tone was well expressed in the _Daily Telegraph_, which said:
"The conference decided by a majority in favour of the principle of
women's suffrage. The work of women during the war, the new position
to which they are called in the whole industrial life of the country,
are considerations which have effected a sweeping change in general
opinion on this great matter; and it is by this time fairly plain
that a measure of women's suffrage must be included in any reform
legislation which is seriously meant."
It will therefore be easily understood that our deputation was of a
very cheerful and congratulatory character on both sides. We were,
however, able to make clear certain points on which doubts had been
expressed. We explained that the support of the suffrage societies
was dependent on our enfranchisement being made an integral part of
the Bill from the first; we were determined not to sanction its being
introduced by amendment. Mr. Lloyd George told us he had already
instructed the parliamentary draughtsman to draw the Bill on the lines
we wished. He also explained that the Bill was not to be a Government
Bill, but a House of Commons Bill; it would be introduced and guided
throughout its passage in the House by a member of the Government, and
would be pushed through by Government machinery, but Members would be
free to vote as they pleased in both Houses on the women's clauses. We
spoke against the high age limit for women, and said if the Government
found it possible to modify this, or otherwise to improve upon the
recommendations of the Speaker's conference in a democratic direction,
we should be gratified; but, at the same time, our chief concern was
for the safety of the whole scheme. We emphasized this, showing how
greatly we preferred an imperfect Bill which could pass to the most
perfect measure in the world which could not. The Prime Minister
smilingly signified his assent to these views. We desired only to press
for such improvements as were consistent with the safety of the whole
Bill.
As the debates went on, and the House of Commons majority for women's
suffrage became more and more overwhelming—the Second Reading being
carried by 329 votes to 40, and the majorities in Committee on Clause
IV., the women's clause, 385 to 55, or 7 to 1, with a majority within
each party into which the House was divided; and, again, on the last
trial of strength, 214 to 17—we felt the ground was sufficiently solid
beneath our feet to attempt an improvement in the Bill. We therefore
urged the Government to apply to women local government electors the
same principle which had already been adopted by the House in regard to
the parliamentary vote—namely, to admit to the register not only those
women who were qualified in their own right, but also the wives of
men similarly qualified. The great importance of this reform had been
urged upon us by a member of our Executive Committee, now President of
the N.U.S.E.C., Miss Eleanor Rathbone, herself a member of the City
Council of Liverpool, and possessing very great experience of local
government matters. The Labour Party gave the proposal its hearty
support. But at first it was resisted by Sir George Cave, who had
charge of the Reform Bill in the House of Commons. A joint deputation
of women's societies and the Labour Party was organized on November
14th, but still Sir George Cave held out no hope that the Government
would accept the amendment. There were vigorous protests in the House
against this attitude; and our societies and other bodies bombarded the
leader of the House and the Minister in charge of the Bill with letters
and telegrams, urging the Government to accept for local government
the principle they had already adopted for the parliamentary register.
This had an excellent effect, and gave us a foretaste of the advantages
of possessing, though at that time only in prospect, real political
power. On November 20th the Government withdrew its opposition, and
the amendment we had urged unsuccessfully on November 14th was agreed
to without a division. The Report Stage of the Bill was concluded on
December 7th, and the Third Reading was taken the same evening without
a division.
The next stage of our battle had to be fought in the House of Lords,
where we had far more formidable opponents than in the House of
Commons. Lord Curzon, the leader of the House and chief representative
of the Government, was also President of the National Society for
Opposing Woman Suffrage. He was an eloquent and polished speaker,
not beloved, but certainly powerful. We had tried to get a personal
interview with him, but without success. His intended line in regard
to the women's clause in the Reform Bill was absolutely unknown to
us. He remained a member of the Government; perhaps, we reflected, it
was to save his face and prevent his resignation that, as Mr. Lloyd
George had told us, the Reform Bill was not a Government but a House of
Commons Bill. Then there was Lord Bryce, from some points of view an
even more formidable opponent, with all his prestige as an historian
and a successful diplomatist. Lord Balfour of Burleigh was another
redoubtable antagonist. We were told no man in the Upper House had more
influence upon the predominant party in it. Then there was a group of
well-known peers, representing both political parties, who were certain
to oppose any sort of enfranchisement of women—Lord Loreburn, Lord
Finlay, Lord Halsbury (these three were Lord Chancellors or ex-Lord
Chancellors), Lord Weardale, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Chaplin. But
we had powerful friends, too, among whom should be mentioned the two
Archbishops, the Bishop of London, Lord Selborne, Lord Lytton, Lord
Burnham, Lord Milner, Lord Grey, Lord Haldane, and Lord Courtney. The
Second Reading of the Bill went through without a division in the House
of Lords on December 17th, but not without very hostile speeches from
Lord Bryce and the aged Lord Halsbury, who carried his ninety-three
years very vigorously. On comparing the two groups, our friends and
our opponents, in the House of Lords we were cheered to see that our
friends carried away the palm for youth. In so aged an assembly as
the House of Lords this was a distinct advantage: very few peers are
young enough to run the risk of rashness. The real fight in the Lords
began when committee stage was reached, on January 8th, 1918. As a
preliminary step the antisuffragists moved the elimination from the
Bill of all clauses which had not been unanimously recommended by the
Speaker's conference. This was aimed at Clause IV., which enfranchised
women, but was opposed by the Government and withdrawn. Then came
the more direct attack, the deletion of the parliamentary franchise
from Clause IV. This gave rise to a full-dress debate, lasting three
days. On the second of these—January 10th—we received, and looked
upon it as a good omen, the joyful news of the passage through the
American House of Representatives of the Federal Amendment on Women's
Suffrage with the necessary two-thirds majority. The House of Lords was
crowded, and excitement and expectation were very keen on both sides.
On the suffrage side the speech of Lord Selborne was particularly
memorable, first-rate in manner, matter, and method. It produced a deep
impression. In the small space allotted to ladies other than peeresses
on the floor of the House suffragists and antisuffragists were penned
up together, and every shaft from either side told with profound
effect. Before we were conducted to our seats in the House of Lords,
Mrs. Humphry Ward had asked me, in the event of the suffrage clause
being carried, if I would support her in trying to get it submitted
to a referendum. Of course my reply was in the negative. I told her
that, so far as my experience went, the referendum was one of those
instruments of government which was most respected where it was least
known, and that I agreed with the Prime Minister in regarding it as an
expensive method of denying justice; and I asked her why she had not
used her influence to get the referendum considered by the Speaker's
conference. Having missed that opportunity, I thought there was little
or no chance of raising the question at this, almost the last, stage of
the Bill.
As the debate went on the suffragists became more and more confident.
Our whip had been sent out signed by Lord Aberconway and Earl Grey.
The first had been a suffragist from his youth up, the son of one of
our oldest and stanchest friends, Mrs. Priscilla McLaren, sister of
John Bright. The second was the great-grandson of the Earl Grey who had
carried the first great Reform Bill in 1832.
At last Lord Curzon rose to close the debate. The story went the round
in suffrage circles that when this moment was reached a group of
suffrage women who were waiting for news in one of the committee rooms
of the House of Lords saw the door open and a policeman's head put in.
He said: "Lord Curzon is up, ladies. But 'e wont do you ladies no 'arm."
Lord Curzon opened his remarks with what may be best described as the
standardized antisuffrage speech: the pattern and method were familiar
to all of us. His mistrust and apprehension were as great as they had
ever been, and were expressed in his usual language. Then came a slight
pause, and Lord Curzon said:
"Now, my Lords, I ask you to contemplate what may happen if, over
this matter, we come into collision with the House of Commons....
Your Lordships may vote as you please. You can cut this clause out of
the Bill. You have a perfect right to do so. But if you think that
by killing the clause you can also save the Bill, I believe you to
be mistaken. Nothing, to my mind, is more certain ... than that, if
your Lordships cut this clause out of the Bill, as you may perhaps be
going to do, the House of Commons will return the Bill to you with
the clause reinserted. Will you be prepared to put it back? Will you
be content, if you eliminate the clause, with this vigorous protest
you have made, and will you then be prepared to give way? Or, if you
do not give way, are you prepared to embark upon a conflict with a
majority of 350 in the House of Commons, of whom nearly 150 belong to
the party to which most of your Lordships also belong?"
Lord Curzon concluded by saying that he could not vote either way
upon the amendment before the House, because he could not take upon
himself the responsibility of "precipitating a conflict from which your
Lordships would not emerge with credit."
The effect of this speech was intensely dramatic. The antisuffragists
were white with rage; the suffragists were flushed by the certainty of
victory. To Lord Aberconway, who was standing at the bar quite near
me, I said, "What will our majority be?" He replied, "Quite thirty."
The division which followed showed that it was rather more than double
this number, for the figures were: For the clause, 134; against it, 71.
Both Archbishops and the other twelve Bishops present voted for the
clause. Only twelve antisuffrage peers followed Lord Curzon's example
and abstained from voting. If Lord Curzon and his twelve followers
had voted against the clause, it would still have been carried by a
substantial majority.
The Royal Assent was given to the Bill on February 6th, 1918.
Thus ended our parliamentary struggle, which had lasted since John
Stuart Mill moved a women's suffrage amendment to the Reform Bill of
1867. The real source of our victory lay in the enormous majorities by
which the suffrage clauses had been carried in the House of Commons,
and to the fact that every political party into which that House was
divided showed a majority for the principle of women's suffrage. People
used to talk about our fifty years' struggle as fifty years in the
wilderness, and offer their sympathy upon the length of time we had had
to work for our cause. But there was no call for commiseration. We had
had a joyful and happy time, marked by victory in some phase or other
of our movement all along. We had won municipal suffrage and all local
government suffrages. Municipal offices had been opened. Women had been
elected to be mayors in important boroughs. The education of girls had
been enormously improved; the Universities had been opened; the medical
profession had admitted women to its ranks; nearly all the learned
societies had followed suit. Women were no longer treated either
socially or legally as if they were helpless children—"milk-white
lambs, bleating for man's protection," as one of our poets had called
them; a fair share of the responsibilities of capable citizenship was
within their reach. To those who were heard to groan from time to time
over the fifty years it took us to win household suffrage for women we
could justly reply that the time we had taken to win household suffrage
for women had been just two years less than the time men had taken to
cover the same ground. For, taking 1832 as their starting-point with
the Reform Bill of that year, it had occupied them fifty-two years
before they won household suffrage for themselves, and they started
with the advantage of about one million of voters already in existence,
and with the further and much greater advantage of the tradition of
seven hundred years of freedom and self-government. We had no such
advantages; we had not one vote between us; "we could not get the vote
because we had not got the franchise," as _Punch_ put it, and in lieu
of the tradition of centuries of freedom behind us, we had the exactly
opposite tradition of unbroken subjection and subordination. The best
men and women in each succeeding generation helped and encouraged our
movement from the days of Mary Wollstonecraft onwards. We were winning
all the time, and never had any cause for despondency.
Our movement goes on all the more surely and rapidly now that we have
what all men have found essential to freedom, the power to control
the Government and by our vote help to decide by what type of men the
country shall be governed.
Very little now remains to be said. The N.U.W.S.S. has changed its
name and extended its objects as described in the following chapter. I
am in hearty sympathy with this development, but I felt that my years
entitled me in the future to a less strenuous existence. I therefore
resigned my presidency of the union, and it was a matter of sincere
satisfaction to me that my old friend and colleague, Miss Eleanor
Rathbone, was elected as my successor.