FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[206]The History is indebted for this chapter to Mrs. Theodora W. Youmans, president of the State Woman Suffrage Association from 1913 until its work was finished in 1920.[207]The following were the officers for the first twelve years: Vice-presidents: Mrs. Jessie M. Luther, Mrs. Madge Waters, Mrs. Laura James, Vida James, Mrs. E. C. Priddle, Miss Linda Rhodes; corresponding secretaries: Miss Lucinda Lake, Mrs. Margaret Geddes, Mrs. Emma Geddes, Miss Lena Newman, Mrs. B. Ostrander, Mrs. Nellie K. Donaldson; recording secretaries: Miss Marion W. Hamilton, Miss Emma Graham, Mrs. Ethel Irish, Miss W. von Bruenchenhein; treasurers: Mrs. Dora Putnam, Mrs. Lydia Woodward, Mrs. F. H. Derrick, Mrs. A. B. Sprague, Mrs. B. Ostrander, Gwendolen Brown Willis; chairmen Executive Committee: Ellen A. Rose, Mrs. Etta Gardner, Mrs. Kate Rindlaub.[208]Near the end of the campaign Miss Mary Swain Wagner from New York organized the American Suffragettes, a short-lived society, with Miss Martha Heide as president, and it arranged a mass meeting in Milwaukee with Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst of England as the principal speaker.[209]A unique automobile tour was made by Mrs. McCulloch and her husband, Frank McCulloch, both prominent lawyers in Chicago, and their four children, who devoted their annual vacation in the summer of 1912 to a tour through Wisconsin, the eldest son driving a big car, Mr. and Mrs. McCulloch making suffrage speeches at designated points and the three younger children enjoying the outing.[210]After 1913 annual conventions were held as follows: 1914, Milwaukee, speakers at evening meeting, Mrs. Pethick Lawrence of England and Rosika Schwimmer of Hungary; 1915, Milwaukee; 1916 (postponed to January, 1917, at the time of the legislative session), Madison; 1917, Milwaukee, Mrs. Nellie McClung of Canada speaker; 1918, no convention because of the war.[211]The officials from 1913, not already mentioned, were as follows: Vice-presidents: Miss Zona Gale, Dr. Jean M. Cooke, Mrs. Wm. Preston Leek, Mrs. Victor Berger, Mrs. Isaac Witter, Mrs. Frank Thanhouser, Miss Harriet F. Bain; corresponding secretaries: Mrs. W. M. Waters, Mrs. Joseph Jastrow, Mrs. James L. Foley, Mrs. Glen Turner, Mrs. Charles H. Mott, Mrs. H. F. Shadbolt; recording secretaries: Mrs. H. M. Holton, Mrs. A. J. Rogers; treasurers, Miss E. E. Robinson, Mrs. Harvey J. Frame; auditors: Miss Gwendolyn B. Willis, Miss M. V. Brown, Mrs. Louis Fuller Hobbins, Miss Amy Comstock, Mrs. A. W. Schorger, Mrs. H. A. J. Upham, Mrs. Sarah H. Van Dusen. Mrs. A. J. Birkhauser.

[206]The History is indebted for this chapter to Mrs. Theodora W. Youmans, president of the State Woman Suffrage Association from 1913 until its work was finished in 1920.

[207]The following were the officers for the first twelve years: Vice-presidents: Mrs. Jessie M. Luther, Mrs. Madge Waters, Mrs. Laura James, Vida James, Mrs. E. C. Priddle, Miss Linda Rhodes; corresponding secretaries: Miss Lucinda Lake, Mrs. Margaret Geddes, Mrs. Emma Geddes, Miss Lena Newman, Mrs. B. Ostrander, Mrs. Nellie K. Donaldson; recording secretaries: Miss Marion W. Hamilton, Miss Emma Graham, Mrs. Ethel Irish, Miss W. von Bruenchenhein; treasurers: Mrs. Dora Putnam, Mrs. Lydia Woodward, Mrs. F. H. Derrick, Mrs. A. B. Sprague, Mrs. B. Ostrander, Gwendolen Brown Willis; chairmen Executive Committee: Ellen A. Rose, Mrs. Etta Gardner, Mrs. Kate Rindlaub.

[208]Near the end of the campaign Miss Mary Swain Wagner from New York organized the American Suffragettes, a short-lived society, with Miss Martha Heide as president, and it arranged a mass meeting in Milwaukee with Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst of England as the principal speaker.

[209]A unique automobile tour was made by Mrs. McCulloch and her husband, Frank McCulloch, both prominent lawyers in Chicago, and their four children, who devoted their annual vacation in the summer of 1912 to a tour through Wisconsin, the eldest son driving a big car, Mr. and Mrs. McCulloch making suffrage speeches at designated points and the three younger children enjoying the outing.

[210]After 1913 annual conventions were held as follows: 1914, Milwaukee, speakers at evening meeting, Mrs. Pethick Lawrence of England and Rosika Schwimmer of Hungary; 1915, Milwaukee; 1916 (postponed to January, 1917, at the time of the legislative session), Madison; 1917, Milwaukee, Mrs. Nellie McClung of Canada speaker; 1918, no convention because of the war.

[211]The officials from 1913, not already mentioned, were as follows: Vice-presidents: Miss Zona Gale, Dr. Jean M. Cooke, Mrs. Wm. Preston Leek, Mrs. Victor Berger, Mrs. Isaac Witter, Mrs. Frank Thanhouser, Miss Harriet F. Bain; corresponding secretaries: Mrs. W. M. Waters, Mrs. Joseph Jastrow, Mrs. James L. Foley, Mrs. Glen Turner, Mrs. Charles H. Mott, Mrs. H. F. Shadbolt; recording secretaries: Mrs. H. M. Holton, Mrs. A. J. Rogers; treasurers, Miss E. E. Robinson, Mrs. Harvey J. Frame; auditors: Miss Gwendolyn B. Willis, Miss M. V. Brown, Mrs. Louis Fuller Hobbins, Miss Amy Comstock, Mrs. A. W. Schorger, Mrs. H. A. J. Upham, Mrs. Sarah H. Van Dusen. Mrs. A. J. Birkhauser.

Wyoming was the pioneer Territory and the pioneer State to give full suffrage to women. It is an interesting fact that the women did not find it necessary to have a Territorial or State Suffrage Association, or even a convention except the one during the campaign for Statehood in 1889-90. This rare situation is explained by the fact that universal suffrage came to the women in the newly organized Territory in 1869 without any general demand for it but through the efforts of a very few progressive men and women. [History of Woman Suffrage, Volume IV, page 994.] When the Constitutional Convention was preparing for Statehood in 1889, holding its sessions in Cheyenne, the women of the Territory held a convention there in order to pass resolutions asking that the constitution should contain an article granting to the women a continuation of the right of suffrage which they had possessed for twenty years. This was granted and both men and women voted on the constitution, which was adopted by a three-fourths majority of the votes cast. The fact that there was no women's association for suffrage or for political purposes was at times a serious handicap to women of other States, who were not able to appeal to an organized body for an endorsement of woman suffrage or related subjects.

In 1901 and at subsequent dates by joint resolution of both Houses of the Legislature a strong appeal was sent to Congress to submit the Federal Suffrage Amendment. On Feb. 14, 1919, a joint resolution was passed and signed by Governor Robert D. Carey commemorating the granting of woman suffrage in Wyoming, Dec. 10, 1869, by making this date each year Wyoming Day, "to be observed by appropriate exercises commemorative of the history of the Commonwealth and the lives and work of its pioneers."

At a State convention in Laramie Nov. 9-11, 1919, with Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, the national president, as guest of honor, a branch of the National League of Women Voters was organized, with Mrs. Cyrus Beard as State chairman. At Casper, Oct. 2, 1920, it was re-organized by Mrs. James Paige, regional director, with Mrs. C. W. Crouter as State chairman.

Ratification.Governor Robert D. Carey called a special session of the Legislature for Jan. 26, 1920, to ratify the Federal Suffrage Amendment. The vote was unanimous in each House, and, after it was finished and had received the Governor's signature, Mrs. Theresa Jenkins of Cheyenne, a faithful supporter of woman suffrage in Wyoming for fifty years, thanked the members and the Governor for their action in behalf of the women of the State, the United States and the world.

The decree that laws must be omitted for lack of space bars out the many statutes in the interests of women and children which are Wyoming's especial pride.

The pioneer member of the Legislature was Mrs. Mary Godat Bellamy of Laramie, elected to the Lower House in 1911. She had been a teacher in the public schools of the city and county superintendent. She was very active in her duties and was instrumental in having a number of excellent bills become laws. Among these were bills for an adequate appropriation to employ a State humane officer for child and animal protection; to establish an industrial institution for male convicts twenty-five years old or under, as at that time 85 per cent. of those in the penitentiary were under twenty-one; an eight-hour day for women and children who worked in factories, laundries and industrial places; a grant to the State University of a permanent annual revenue. She helped to kill a bill to repeal an existing law which prohibited liquor being sold in places that were not incorporated, as mining and lumber camps. Mrs. Bellamy said later: "While the men were courteous yet no woman must expect that when it comes to gaining a point a man is going to make an exception because his colleague is a woman."

In the Legislature of 1913 two women Representatives had seats—Mrs. Anna Miller of Laramie, a mother of six grownchildren, three of whom were graduated from the State University, and Miss Nettie Truax of Sundance, a school teacher and at one time county superintendent. Mrs. Miller was a successful merchant and at the time of her election was at the head of a large drygoods establishment. She succeeded her son in the Legislature. Miss Truax was made chairman of the important Committee on Education. In 1915 Mrs. Morna Wood, also of Sundance, was elected to the Lower House. She introduced a bill, which became a law, for the protection and regulation of child employment. During this session a bill in the direction of easy divorce came before the House and Mrs. Wood made a strong speech condemning it and appealing for loyal support of her protest in the interests of the home and the children. Nothing further was heard of the bill. While women may not have taken a large place as lawmakers they have had an active and effective interest in many excellent laws.

The following women have been elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Miss Estelle Reel, 1894-1898; Miss Rose A. Bird, 1910-1914; Miss Edith K. O. Clark, 1914-1918; Mrs. Katharine A. Morton, 1918-1922. This is the most highly paid office occupied by a woman, the salary being the same as that of the Secretary of State, State Auditor and State Treasurer. By virtue of her office the Superintendent is a member of the State Boards of Pardons, Charities and Reforms, Land Commissioners, School Land Commissioners and Education, with power to appoint all members of the last board, which elects the State Commissioner of Education. At present all the counties have women county superintendents of schools, not an unusual situation. They also hold other county offices and as in all States as soon as the suffrage is granted are eligible to all official positions.

The largest woman's organization is the Federation of Clubs, with a membership of 4,000, a democratic body which has been able to do much for the State in legislation, education and reform. The women of Wyoming have been very conservative with the ballot and have never used radical means to accomplish their aims. No woman's ticket has ever been offered.

All institutions of learning are co-educational. Since 1891 there has been but a short interval when women have not been onthe Board of Trustees of the State University. Grace Raymond Hebard was the first, serving thirteen years. For eighteen years, 1891-1908, a woman was secretary, acting also as financial agent, buying for the institution and paying the bills. In February, 1913, Mrs. Mary B. David of Douglas was appointed trustee by the Governor and displayed such unusual ability as an executive that later she was unanimously elected by the Board as its president, serving from September, 1917, to February, 1919, when she removed from the State. During her administration more important matters than ever before were brought to the Board for its consideration and solution—questions of land leases and oil grants, rents and royalties involving millions of dollars. The efficient, intelligent and impartial way in which Mrs. David handled these matters, of course in conjunction with the other members, won for her from the Board and the parties involved the strongest commendation. At one time a woman was seriously thought of for president of the university but she refused to consider it. At present (1920) two of the four most highly paid professors are women at the head of the combined departments of Psychology and Philosophy and of Political Economy and Sociology. There are five women on the Faculty, receiving the same compensation as the men holding equal positions. Women are full professors in History, English and Home Economics. The professor of Elementary Education and supervisor of the training school is a woman and the Dean of Women ranks as a full professor. With the assistant professors there are fourteen women on the Faculty.

On June 12, 1921, this university gave its first honorary degree and very appropriately to a woman. With beautiful ceremonies the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred on Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association and of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance.

FOOTNOTES:[212]The History is indebted for this chapter to Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard, professor of Political Economy and Sociology in the State University of Wyoming.

[212]The History is indebted for this chapter to Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard, professor of Political Economy and Sociology in the State University of Wyoming.

When the bill was before Congress in 1912 to make Alaska a Territory of the United States an amendment was added on motion of Representative Frank W. Mondell of Wyoming to give its Legislature full power to enfranchise women. This was accepted by the House without objection. Afterwards the official board of the National American Woman Suffrage Association gladly responded to the request of Arthur G. Stroup of Sitka, one of the Territorial Representatives, who intended to introduce a bill for the purpose, to send up some suitable literature. The board also asked women in Seattle, former residents of Alaska, to write to the members of the new Legislature.

Woman suffrage in Alaska possesses the unique record of being granted without any solicitation whatever from the residents. It is not known that a suffrage club ever existed in the Territory; it is quite certain that prior to the convening of the first Territorial Legislature in Juneau in 1913 no suffrage campaigning whatever had been carried on, yet two members, coming from towns not less than 1,500 miles apart, brought drafts for an equal suffrage bill. House Bill No. 2, "An Act to extend the elective franchise to the women in the Territory of Alaska," was the first to pass both Houses—7 Senators and 15 Representatives—and the vote on it was unanimous, Senator Elwood Brunner of Nome, the only member who had expressed himself as unfavorable, having had the good sense or caution to absent himself during roll call. This was also the first bill to be approved by the Governor, J. F. A. Strong, on March 21, 1913, and the Act became effectiveninety days thereafter. It declared the elective franchise extended to such women as had the qualifications required of male electors.

The Alaska Code had permitted women to vote only at School elections. The new law gave them the privilege of voting for the officers in incorporated towns and cities; for members of the Territorial Legislature and for Territorial Delegate to Congress.

It is estimated that there is a white population of 30,000 of whom between 5,000 and 6,000 are women. Probably not 500 native women are voters. Indian men have a vote if they have "severed tribal relations," which is interpreted to mean that if an Indian moves to a white man's town or lives on a creek or in a camp in such a way that the missions or the marshals think he has left his tribe, he can vote. Indian women have a vote if they marry white men who have a vote; if they are unmarried and have "severed tribal relations"; if they are married to an Indian who has "severed tribal relations." The original code said definitely that Juries should be drawn from the male citizens and it has never been changed. With this exception the rights of men and women are the same.

Two other bills of importance passed by the first Legislature provided for the compulsory education of white children and for Juvenile Courts to look after dependent children and create a Board of Children's Guardians. This board consists of the District Judge and U. S. Marshal in each judicial division, together with one woman appointed by the Governor, thus creating four such boards in the Territory, one for each division.

The interest of Alaska women in questions affecting local or Territorial conditions is intense and their efforts effective, as their work in the prohibition campaign of 1916 proved. This was essentially a woman's campaign, so well handled that at the plebiscite held at the time of the general election in November, 1916, the vote was about two to one in favor of prohibition. As a result, Congress enacted the Bone Dry Prohibition law for the Territory Feb. 14, 1917. It is believed that about three-fourths of the qualified women vote but there is no means of knowing. The percentage of illiteracy among white women is negligible and the young native women taught at the Government and mission schools can read and write.

The women of Alaska did their share in all kinds of war work, for conservation, bond drives, Red Cross and kindred activities. On account of the vast distances and small means of transportation any general cooperation is impossible. There are two daily papers in Fairbanks with a wide circulation over the entire district, which is larger than Texas. The organizing for Red Cross work had to be largely done through these papers but in a few months there were about 600 knitters, practically all the women in the district, and thirty organizations in the mining camps, many of these having only two or three women. In Fairbanks, by means of dances, card parties, sales, etc., $8,000 were raised just to buy wool, besides all the funds and "drives."

The interest of Alaskan women in such public questions as affect women elsewhere is that of the spectator rather than of the worker. When legislation on housing and tenement laws, protection of factory workers, prevention of child labor and like problems becomes necessary they will not be lacking in interest or energy.

The Organic Act under which the Territories of the United States were created said that at the first election persons with specified qualifications should be entitled to vote and at subsequent elections such persons as the Territorial Legislature might designate. It was under this Act that Wyoming and Utah enfranchised their women in 1869 and 1870 and Washington in 1883.

When in 1899 the Congress was preparing to admit Hawaii as a Territory the commission framed a constitution which specifically refused the privilege that had been granted to every other Territory of having its own Legislature decide who should vote after the first election, by inserting a clause that it "should not grant to ... any individual any special privilege or franchise without the approval of Congress." This constitution gave the suffrage to every masculine citizen of whatever nationality—Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese—who could read and write English or Hawaiian, and it repeatedly used the word "male" to bar women from having a vote or holding an office. The members of this commission were Senators John T. Morgan of Alabama and Shelby M. Cullom of Illinois; Representative Robert R. Hitt ofIllinois; President Sanford B. Dole and Associate Justice Frear of Hawaii. Justice Frear said over his own signature that he and President Dole desired that the Legislature should have power to authorize woman suffrage but the rest of the commission would not permit it. Miss Susan B. Anthony president, and the Official Board of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, made vigorous objection to this abuse of power, sent a protest to every member of Congress and followed this with petitions officially signed by large associations but to no avail. The Act was approved by President William McKinley April 30, 1900.[214]

The women had always exercised great influence in political affairs and the people of Hawaii resented this discrimination but the U. S. Congress then and for years afterwards was adamant in its opposition to woman suffrage anywhere. After the women of Washington, California and Oregon were enfranchised in 1910-11-12 this resentment found expression among the women of Honolulu in 1912, when they called on Mrs. John W. Dorsett to help them organize a suffrage club. They learned in October that by good fortune Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, would stop there on her way home from a trip around the world and they arranged by wireless messages for her to address a mass meeting at the opera house the one evening she would be there. The audience was large and sympathetic and she learned that every legislative candidate at the approaching election had announced himself in favor of getting the vote for women. She met with the suffrage club and found its constitution modeled on the one recommended by the National American Woman Suffrage Association. She was in touch with the women afterwards and the interest was kept alive.

By 1915 the more thoughtful men of the Territory were beginning to feel that its women must be enfranchised. Both political parties declared in favor of asking the U. S. Congress for an Act giving the Hawaiian Legislature authority in this matter and that body itself passed a bill to this effect. This was taken to Washington by the Delegate from the Territory, J. K. Kalanianaole, who presented it but it received no attention. Hepresented it again in 1916, with a like result. Soon afterwards Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin F. Pitman of Brookline, Mass., visited the Islands. Mr. Pitman was the son of a Hawaiian Chiefess and although he had not been there since childhood he was the person of the highest rank. Mrs. Pitman was prominent among the suffrage leaders in Massachusetts and was deeply interested in the situation in Hawaii. She attended the opening of the Legislature and conversed with nearly all the members, finding them to a man in favor of the bill, and the Legislature adopted strong resolutions calling upon Congress to sanction it. In answer to a request for her experience to use in this chapter she wrote:

It was on Jan. 30, 1917, that we arrived in Honolulu and on the 31st Madame Nakiuna, who was known as the Court historian, gave us a large reception at Laniakea. At this fête were all the women of the highest social circles in the Islands. Among them were Mrs. John W. Dorsett, Mrs. A. P. Taylor, Mrs. Castle-Coleman, Miss Mary Ermine Cross and others who had heard of my activities in "the cause" and importuned me to hold meetings to try to arouse a keener interest. I would have consented at once but for the fact that almost the first person I saw in this beautiful land was the field-secretary of the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Extension of Suffrage to Women. I had a feeling that if there was not already an anti-association here there would be one the moment I began any serious work and so I advised waiting, promising to do my best for them as soon as it seemed wise, and so, while I was indeed sorry that the serious illness of a relative obliged her to depart for home at a very early date, it was amusing to say the least that while she was sailing out of the harbor I was holding my first suffrage meeting in the home of Mrs. Dorsett. I held meetings on two successive days, one attended mostly by the middle class and the other by high caste Hawaiians and the "missionary set," which, perhaps, we might style their "400." My talk was in the form of a discussion and I was surprised and delighted at the fluency of all who spoke, their wide knowledge of world affairs and desire for the franchise. Many months had passed since the departure of Prince Kalanianaole and so they begged me to investigate as soon as I returned home. This I promised to do and wrote at once to Mrs. Catt all that I heard.

Mrs. Catt sent Mrs. Pitman's letter to Mrs. Maud Wood Park, chairman of the Congressional Committee of the National Suffrage Association and she took up the question with Senator John F. Shafroth, chairman of the Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico. The Delegate from Hawaii, who was deeply interested,welcomed this new force to assist in pushing the bill, which had simply been neglected. On May 21, 1917, he presented still another resolution from the Territorial Legislature asking for it and on June I Senator Shafroth introduced the following bill:

Be it enacted... that the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii be, and it is hereby, vested with the power to provide that in all elections ... female citizens possessing the same qualifications as male citizens shall be entitled to vote.Sec. 2.That the said Legislature is further hereby vested with the power to have submitted to the voters of the Territory the question of whether or not the female citizens shall be empowered to vote....

Sec. 2.That the said Legislature is further hereby vested with the power to have submitted to the voters of the Territory the question of whether or not the female citizens shall be empowered to vote....

The bill was reported favorably by the committee and passed by the Senate without objection or even discussion on September 15. In the House it was referred to the Committee on Woman Suffrage, which set April 29, 1918, for a hearing. Delegate Kalanianaole had been called back to Honolulu by business but was represented by his secretary and there were present Mrs. Park, who presided, Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, honorary president of the National Suffrage Association, and Mrs. Pitman, the principal speaker. Judge John E. Raker was chairman of the committee, which did not need any argument but was interested in asking many questions of Mrs. Pitman. At the close of the hearing the committee voted unanimously to make a favorable report. The bill was passed June 3 without a roll call. It was signed by President Wilson on the 13th.

The matter was now in the control of the Hawaiian Legislature, which received petitions from a number of organizations of women to exercise its power to confer the suffrage without a referendum to the voters. This was recommended by Governor C. J. McCarthy and early in the session of 1919 the Senate took this action and sent the bill to the House. This body under outside influence refused to endorse it but substituted a bill to send the question to the voters. The Senate would not accept it and both bills were deadlocked.

The women were then spurred to action; old suffrage clubs were revived; one was formed in Honolulu of the native high class women and what is known as the "missionary set," a very brilliant group. Mrs. Dorsett made a tour of all the Islands toarouse interest and on Mani, under the leadership of Mrs. Harry Baldwin, clubs were formed all over the island. A Hawaiian Suffrage Association was organized. At the next convention of the National Association a resolution was adopted that it be invited to become auxiliary without the payment of dues and the invitation was officially accepted with thanks.

The Federal Suffrage Amendment proclaimed by Secretary of State Colby Aug. 26, 1920, included the women of the Territories and it was thus that Hawaiian women became enfranchised. They voted in large numbers at the November elections that year.

The Philippine Islands came under the jurisdiction of the United States as a consequence of the Spanish-American war in 1898 and their government soon became an active question in Congress. There was a desire to permit their own people to participate in this to some extent and the National American Woman Suffrage Association, always on the watch tower, took immediate action toward having women included in any scheme of self-government. With the recent example before it of the most unjust discrimination against them in the admission of Hawaii as a Territory, the association under the presidency of Miss Susan B. Anthony petitioned the members of Congress to recognize the rights of women in whatever form of government was adopted. At its annual convention in 1899 impassioned speeches were made against taking away from Filipino women the position of superiority which they always had held under Spanish rule by giving the men political authority over them.

In 1900 Military Governor-General Otis ordered a re-organization of the municipalities. To decide who should have a vote in local affairs the Philippine Commission of the U. S. Senate summoned well informed persons and among them, in the spring of 1902, were Judge William H. Taft, Governor-General of the islands, and Archbishop Nozaleda, who had been connected with the Catholic church there for twenty-six years and archbishop since 1889. Both declared that the suffrage should be given to the women rather than to the men, the former saying: "The factis that, not only among the Tagalogs but also among the Christian Filipinos, the woman is the active manager of the family, so if you expect to confer political power on the Filipinos it ought to be given to the women. Following is part of the Archbishop's statement. (Senate Document, p. 109.):

The woman is better than the man in every way—in intelligence, in virtue and in labor—and a great deal more economical. She is very much given to trade and trafficking. If any rights and privileges are to be granted to the natives, do not give them to the men but to the women.Q. Then you think it would be much better to give the women the right to vote than the men?A. O, much better. Why, even in the fields it is the women who do the work; the men go to the cock fights and gamble. The woman is the one who supports the man there, so every law of justice demands that in political life they should have the privilege over the men.

Q. Then you think it would be much better to give the women the right to vote than the men?

A. O, much better. Why, even in the fields it is the women who do the work; the men go to the cock fights and gamble. The woman is the one who supports the man there, so every law of justice demands that in political life they should have the privilege over the men.

Notwithstanding this and other testimony of a similar nature the Commission framed a Code giving a Municipal or local franchise to certain classes of men and excluding all women, taking away from them the privileges they always had possessed. The men soon began demanding their own lawmaking body and in response Congress passed an Act to take effect Jan. 15, 1907, to provide for the holding of elections in the Islands for a Legislative Assembly. The Act limited the voters to "male persons 23 years of age or over," thus again putting up the barriers against women and including them in the list of the disqualified as listed—"insane, feeble-minded, rebels and traitors."

The U. S. Government did, however, give women to the same extent as men all educational advantages, which heretofore had been denied them and their progress was very rapid. In 1912 Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, visited Manila on her trip around the world and was warmly received. A meeting was called at the Manila Hotel for August 15 and twelve women responded. After making an address she helped them form a club which they called Society for the Advancement of Women. Thirty attended the next meeting two weeks later and they took up active philanthropic work. In a little while most of the women of influence were members of it and it was re-organized as the Woman's Clubof Manila. Its work extended in many directions and it became one of the city's leading institutions. Other clubs were formed and they joined the General Federation of Clubs in 1915. There are between 300 and 400 clubs in the Islands (1920).

Meanwhile the men were not satisfied with their one-house Legislative Assembly largely under American control, but wanted more power. In response Congress provided for a Legislature of a Senate of 24 members and a Lower House of 90, all to be elected except two of the former and nine of the latter, who would be appointed by the American Governor-General to represent districts where elections were not held, the Act to go into effect in 1918. The suffrage was still confined exclusively to males, although in 1916 the Women's Club had organized fifty-seven Mothers' Clubs for the welfare of infants; had secured through women lawyers legal aid for over thirty poor women; had been instrumental in having 15,000 people make gardens to give variety to their fish and rice diet and done a vast amount of other valuable public work. The Act passed by large majorities, members voting for it who had persistently voted against the Federal Amendment to enfranchise the women of the United States.

The Philippines were from 1917 represented in Congress by an able and progressive Commissioner, Jaime C. De Veyra, an advocate of woman suffrage. His wife, a native of Iloilo, who had been prominent in civic work in the Islands, shared his views, and was a frequent visitor at the suffrage headquarters in Washington. In 1919, assisted by Miss Bessie Dwyer, vice-president of the Manila Women's Club, she gave beautifully illustrated addresses in Washington and New York, on the position of women in the Islands. In these and in interviews she said:

Philippine women have always been free and have always been held as equals of the men. In the little rural "barrios" you will always find some sort of woman leader. All over the islands they are highly considered. Even when old they exercise full sway over the family and have the last word in all financial matters. The married children still cling to the mother as adviser. The young women who marry go into partnership with their husbands and while the men handle the workers it is the women who do the paying and oversee things generally. They are engaged in all kinds of business for themselves and are employed by scores ofthousands. Many thousands carry work home where they can take care of their children, do the housework and be earning money.They have the same opportunities in the professions as men, are successful physicians and lawyers and members of the Bar Association. Laws made for them have combined the best of Spanish and American precedents. They are guardians of their own children; married women may hold property; of that which accrues to a married couple, the wife is half administrator. These are vested rights and cannot be taken away.A short time ago the question of woman suffrage was introduced into the Legislature, not by the initiative of American women but urged by Madame Apacibile, wife of one of the government secretaries. A petition signed by 18,000 women asking for a joint legislative hearing was sent to the law makers who granted it. Three Filipina women spoke, one the widow of the eminent Concepcion Calderon, a successful business woman, owning a fish farm and an embroidery enterprise. Others were Mrs. Feodore Kalon, Miss Almeda and Miss Pazlegaspi, the last two practicing lawyers. Only one man appeared in the negative. The president of the Senate, the Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, is in favor of woman suffrage.

They have the same opportunities in the professions as men, are successful physicians and lawyers and members of the Bar Association. Laws made for them have combined the best of Spanish and American precedents. They are guardians of their own children; married women may hold property; of that which accrues to a married couple, the wife is half administrator. These are vested rights and cannot be taken away.

A short time ago the question of woman suffrage was introduced into the Legislature, not by the initiative of American women but urged by Madame Apacibile, wife of one of the government secretaries. A petition signed by 18,000 women asking for a joint legislative hearing was sent to the law makers who granted it. Three Filipina women spoke, one the widow of the eminent Concepcion Calderon, a successful business woman, owning a fish farm and an embroidery enterprise. Others were Mrs. Feodore Kalon, Miss Almeda and Miss Pazlegaspi, the last two practicing lawyers. Only one man appeared in the negative. The president of the Senate, the Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, is in favor of woman suffrage.

Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison recommended to the Legislature to give the suffrage to women, as it has the power to do. A bill was introduced and passed the Senate almost unanimously Dec. 7, 1919, but it was not acted upon by the House. As the Constitution of the United States is not in force in the Philippines the women were not enfranchised by the Federal Suffrage Amendment in 1920 but must await the action of their own Legislature.

After Porto Rico came under the control of the United States as a result of the Spanish-American war in 1898 its political status was undetermined for a long time. Shortly before that war Spain had granted universal suffrage to all its men over 21. Congress confirmed this privilege as to the affairs of the island but they had no voting rights in those of the United States. After a few years the more progressive of the people began asking for the status of a Territory with their own Legislature. This agitation was continued for sixteen years before Congress took action and agreed on a bill which would admit the islanders to citizenship. As usual the chief difficulty was over the suffrage. There was a desire to have a slight educational and a small property qualificationbut as a large majority of the men were illiterate and without property this aroused a protest, which was supported by the American Federation of Labor. On May 22, 1916, while the Porto Rican bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole in the Lower House of Congress, the Republican floor leader, James R. Mann (Ills.), discovered that a majority of those present were Republicans and suffragists. He therefore proposed a clause giving the franchise to the women, which was passed by 60 to 37. He expected to put the Democrats in the position of voting it down the next day in regular session but when it came up Republicans joined with Democrats in defeating it by 80 noes to 59 ayes.

Finally when, under pressure, the committee was obliged to put in universal suffrage for the great mass of illiterate men, even the most ardent advocates of woman suffrage among the members felt that it would be unwise to add universal suffrage for women. In answer to the urgent request of the Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association that this injustice should not be done to women, Senator John F. Shafroth, chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, wrote: "I would have been very glad to incorporate a provision including women but it would have killed the bill. I was notified by Senator Martine of New Jersey and others that they would not permit a provision of that kind to go into it and the parliamentary stage of the bill was such that any one Senator could have defeated it. As it was, it took two years to get the bill before Congress and fully twenty motions to have it considered and if either prohibition or woman suffrage had gone into it there would have been no bill for Porto Rico. We avoided the word 'male' in prescribing the qualifications of electors."

The Act, which received the approval of President Wilson March 2, 1917, provided that at the first election for the Legislature and other officers the electors should be those qualified under the present law, and thereafter voters should be citizens of the United States 21 years of age and have such additional qualifications as might be prescribed by the Legislature of Porto Rico. The election took place on July 16. While this Act was an improvement on the one which admitted Hawaii as a Territoryit left the many educated, tax paying women, the woman in business, the teachers in government and mission schools, the nurses in the hospitals, the social workers, wholly in the power of men.

About 1916 there was incorporated in Porto Rico an organization called La Liga Feminea de Puerto Rico, which worked energetically for the social uplift of the people and for the political enfranchisement of women. The official organ wasLa Mujer del Siglo Veinte—The Twentieth Century Woman. Early in the spring of 1917 Mrs. Geraldine Maud Froscher, an American living in Porto Rico, appealed to the National Suffrage Association for financial assistance for a campaign preparatory to the introduction of the woman suffrage bill in the Legislature that year. Literature was sent immediately and the association agreed to pay the expenses of Mrs. Froscher, who organized suffrage leagues in all towns of any considerable size, addressed women's clubs, interviewed legislators and distributed literature. In this work she had the able assistance of Mrs. Ana Roqué Duprey, the first president of the San Juan Suffrage League, editor of the above paper and later ofEl Heraldo de la Mujer—The Woman's Herald, with Mrs. Froscher as the American editor.

In August, 1917, at the first session of the new Legislature, a bill was introduced in the Lower House to give women the right to hold office but without the right to vote and one to give them equal rights. Later two more bills were introduced but none was passed. As Porto Rico is an unincorporated Territory of the United States, its women were not enfranchised by the Federal Suffrage Amendment in 1920. At three consecutive sessions of the Legislative Assembly a petition for woman suffrage has been presented.

FOOTNOTES:[213]The History is indebted for this chapter to Mrs. Jeannette Drury Clark, a graduate of the University of California, who with her husband, John A. Clark, an attorney, has made her home in Fairbanks for the past fifteen years.[214]History of Woman Suffrage, Volume IV, pages 325,343,346,446.

[213]The History is indebted for this chapter to Mrs. Jeannette Drury Clark, a graduate of the University of California, who with her husband, John A. Clark, an attorney, has made her home in Fairbanks for the past fifteen years.

[214]History of Woman Suffrage, Volume IV, pages 325,343,346,446.

I consider it an honor to have been asked to take up the pen from the date 1900, when my dear friend and colleague, the late Helen Blackburn, laid it down after writing the chapter on Great Britain for Volume IV of the History of Woman Suffrage. I am particularly fortunate in that it falls to my lot to include the year 1918, when Victory crowned our fifty years' struggle in these islands to obtain the Parliamentary franchise for women.

Several circumstances entirely outside our power of control combined to promote the rapid growth of the movement at the beginning of the XXth Century. The chief of these were the South African war, 1899-1902, and the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. The war with the Transvaal was caused by the refusal of President Kruger and his advisers to recognize the principle that taxation and representation should go together. The so-called Uitlanders, who formed a large proportion of the population of the Transvaal and provided by taxation a still larger proportion of its revenue, were practically excluded from representation. This led to intense irritation and ultimately to war. It was, therefore, inevitable that articles in the press and the speeches of British statesmen dealing with the war used arguments which might have been transferred without the alteration of a single word to women's suffrage speeches.

I have described on pages 29 and 30 of Women's Suffrage, a Short History of a Great Movement, the strong impulse which had been given to the electorial activity of British women by theCorrupt Practices Act of 1883, which made paid canvassing illegal and otherwise reduced electorial expenses. Very soon after it came into operation both the chief political parties organized bands of educated women to act as canvassers, election agents, etc., in contested elections. The war stimulated this electorial activity of women. A general election was held in 1900 and in the absence of husbands, sons and brothers in South Africa, many wives, mothers and sisters ran the whole election on their behalf. Several of these were well known anti-suffragists. Even Mrs. Humphry Ward herself, on the occasion of an important anti-suffrage meeting in London, excused her absence on the ground that her presence was required by the exigencies of the pending election in West Herts, where her son was a candidate. Suffragists again were not slow to point the moral—if women were fit (and they obviously were fit) not only to advise, persuade and instruct voters how to vote but also to conduct election campaigns from start to finish, they were surely fit to vote themselves.

The death of Queen Victoria in January, 1901, called forth a spontaneous burst of loyal gratitude, devotion and appreciation from all parties and all sections of the country. Every leading statesman among her councillors dwelt on the extraordinary penetration of her mind, her wide political knowledge, her great practical sagacity, her grasp of principle, and they combined to acclaim her as the most trusted of all the constitutional monarchs whom the world had then seen. How could she be all that they justly claimed for her, if the whole female sex laboured under the disabilities which, according to Mrs. Humphry Ward, were imposed by nature and therefore irremediable? Nevertheless, it must not be supposed, genuine as were these tributes to Queen Victoria's political sagacity, that her example immediately cleared out of the minds of the opponents the notion that women were fitly classed with aliens, felons, idiots and lunatics, as persons who for reasons of public safety were debarred from the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise.

The Parliament returned in 1906 had an immense Liberal majority. There were only 157 Unionist members in the House of Commons against 513 Liberals, Labour men and Nationalists, all of whom were for Home Rule and therefore prepared to supportin all critical divisions the new administration which was formed under the Premiership of Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. The new House contained 426 members pledged to Women's Suffrage. The Premier was himself a suffragist but his Cabinet contained several determined anti-suffragists, notable among whom were Mr. Herbert H. Asquith, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. James Bryce, chief secretary for Ireland (now Lord Bryce), who became British Ambassador to the United States in 1907. The new Prime Minister received a large, representative suffrage deputation in May, 1906, in which all sections of suffragist opinion were represented, and their case was laid before him with force and clearness. In reply he told them that they had made out "a conclusive and irrefutable case" but that he was not prepared to take any steps to realize their hopes. When asked what he would advise ardent suffragists to do he told them to "go on pestering." This advice was taken to heart by the group (a small minority of the whole) who had lately formed in Manchester the organization known as The Women's Social and Political Union, led by Mrs. Pankhurst.

An unforeseen misfortune was the death in 1908 of Sir H. C. Bannerman and the fact that his successor was our principal opponent in the Government, Mr. Asquith. It was not very long before he revealed the line of his attack upon the enfranchisement of women. He informed his party in May, 1908, that his intention was to introduce before the expiration of the existing Parliament a Reform Bill giving a wide extension of the franchise to men and no franchise at all to women. In the previous February a Women's Suffrage Bill which removed all sex disability from existing franchises had passed its second reading in the House of Commons but this apparently had no effect on Mr. Asquith. There were, however, some cracks in his armour. He admitted that about two-thirds of his Cabinet and a majority of his party were favourable to Women's Suffrage and he promised that when his own exclusively male Reform Bill was before the House and had got into committee, if an amendment to include women were moved on democratic lines, his Government, as a Government, would not oppose it. This was at all events an advance on the position taken by Mr. Gladstone upon his Reform Bill of 1884,when he vehemently opposed a women's suffrage amendment and caused it to be defeated.

The emergence of what was afterwards known as "militancy" belongs to this period, dating from the General Election of 1906 and very much stimulated by Premier Bannerman's reply to the deputation in that year and by the attitude of Mr. Asquith. It will ever be an open question on which different people, with equal opportunities of forming a judgment, will pronounce different verdicts, whether "militancy" did more harm or good to the suffrage cause. It certainly broke down the "conspiracy of silence" on the subject up to then observed by the press. Every extravagance, every folly, every violent expression, and of course when the "militants" after 1908 proceeded to acts of violence, every outrage against person or property were given the widest possible publicity not only in Great Britain but all over the world. There was soon not an intelligent human being in any country who was not discussing Women's Suffrage and arguing either for or against it. This was an immense advantage to the movement, for we had, as Sir H. Campbell Bannerman had said, "a conclusive and irrefutable case." Our difficulty had been to get it heard and considered and this "militancy" secured. The anti-suffrage press believed that it would kill the movement and it was this belief which encouraged them to give it the widest possible publicity. The wilder and more extravagant the "militants" became the more they were quoted, described and advertised in every way. The sort of "copy" which anti-suffrage papers demanded was supplied by them in cartloads and not at all by law-abiding suffragists, who were an immense majority of the whole. This can be illustrated by an anecdote. The Constitutional suffragists had organized a big meeting in Trafalgar Square and had secured a strong team of first-rate speakers. The square was well filled and on the fringe of the crowd the following conversation was overheard between two press men who had come to report the proceedings. One said he was going away, the second asked why and the first answered: "It's no good stopping, there's no copy in this; these women are only talking sense!"

The earlier years of militant activity were in my opinion helpful to the whole movement, for up to 1908 the "militants" hadonly adopted sensational and unusual methods, such as waving flags and making speeches in the lobby of the House and asking inconvenient questions at public meetings. They had suffered a great deal of violence but had used none. From 1908 onwards, however, they began to use violence, stone throwing, personal attacks, sometimes with whips, on obnoxious members of the Government, window smashing, the destruction of the contents of letter-boxes—in one instance the destruction of ballot papers cast in an election. Later arson practised for the destruction or attempted destruction of churches and houses became more and more frequent. All this had an intensely irritating effect on public opinion. "Suffragist" as far as the general public was concerned became almost synonymous with "Harpy." This cause which had not been defeated on a straight vote in the House of Commons since 1886 was now twice defeated; once in 1912 and once in 1913. The whole spirit engendered by attempting to gain by violence or threats of violence what was not conceded to justice and reason was intensely inimical to the spirit of our movement. We believed with profound conviction that whatever might be gained in that way did not and could not rest on a sure foundation. The women's movement was an appeal against government by physical force and those who used physical violence in order to promote it were denying their faith to make their faith prevail.

The difference made a deep rift in the suffrage movement. The constitutional societies felt bound to exclude "militants" from their membership and on several occasions issued strongly-worded protests against the use of violence as political propaganda. The fact that men under similar circumstances had been much more violent and destructive, especially in earlier days when they were less civilized, did not inspire us with the wish to imitate them. We considered that they had been wrong and that "direct action," as it is now the fashion to call coercion by means of physical force, had always reacted unfavorably on those who employed it. While the constitutional societies freely and repeatedly expressed their views on these points, the "militants" not unnaturally retorted by attempting to break up our meetings, shouting down our speakers and provoking every sort of disorderat them. It was an exceptionally difficult situation and that we won through as well as we did was due to the solid loyalty to constitutional and law-abiding methods of propaganda of the great mass of suffragists throughout the country. We quoted the American proverb, "Three hornets can upset a camp meeting," and we determined to hold steadily on our way and not let our hornets upset us. Our societies multiplied rapidly both in numbers and in membership. For instance, the number forming the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies increased from 64 in 1909 to 130 in 1910 and went on increasing rapidly until just before the war in 1914 they numbered more than 600, with a revenue of over 42,000 pounds a year.

More important in many ways than the "militant" movement was the emergence at the General Election in 1906 of the Labour Party. Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Philip Snowden and others of its leaders were very strong supporters of women's suffrage and it was not long before the party definitely made the enfranchisement of women on the same terms as men a plank in its platform. In anticipation of the first General Election of 1910, the N.U.W.S.S. addressed the leaders of the three British parties, Conservative, Liberal, and Labour, asking them what they were prepared to do for Women's Suffrage. Mr. Asquith gave his answer at an Albert Hall meeting in December, 1909. He reiterated his intention, if returned to power, of bringing in a Reform Bill, and he promised to make the insertion of a Women's Suffrage amendment an open question for the House of Commons to decide. He added: "The Government ... has no disposition or desire to burke the question; it is clearly an issue on which the new House ought to be given an opportunity to express its views." This meant that the Government whips would not be put on to oppose the enfranchisement of women. Mr. Balfour replied to our memorial that it was a non-party question on which members of the Unionist Party could exercise individual freedom of action. Mr. Arthur Henderson, for the Labour Party, told us that it had already placed the enfranchisement of women on its programme. The Labour Party was not large but it was an important advantage to us to have even a small party definitely pledged to our support. There were twoGeneral Elections in 1910, in January and December. The Liberal, Labour and Nationalist group lost heavily in the second of these elections, their majority being reduced from 334 to 124.

The Labour Party between these two elections had lost six seats but they were still forty strong, all definitely pledged to Women's Suffrage in the new Parliament which assembled in January, 1911. Our Bill had been carried on its second reading in 1910 by a majority of 110 but after the second General Election of 1910 it secured on May 5, 1911, a majority of 167; there were 55 pairs, only 88 members of Parliament going into the Lobby against us. The Bill on each of these occasions was of a very limited character; it proposed to enfranchise women-householders, widows and spinsters and would only have added about a million women to the Parliamentary register. It was called the Conciliation Bill, because it sought to conciliate the differences between different types of suffragists in the House of Commons, from the extreme Conservative who only cared for the representation of women of property, to the extreme Radical who demanded the enfranchisement of every woman. A committee was formed to promote the success of this bill in Parliament of which the Earl of Lytton was Chairman and Mr. H. N. Brailsford Hon. Sec. It was believed that the bill represented the greatest common measure of the House of Commons' belief in women's votes. The Labour Party were strongly in favour of a much wider enfranchisement of women but generously waived their own preferences in order, as they believed, to get some sort of representation for women on the Statute Book. Almost immediately after this large majority for the second reading of the Conciliation Bill in May, 1911, an official announcement was made by the Government that Mr. Asquith's promise of the previous November that an opportunity should be afforded for proceeding with the bill in all its stages would be fulfilled in the session of 1912.

We were then in the most favourable position we had ever occupied; the passing of the Women's Suffrage Bill in the near future seemed a certainty. The "militants" had suspended all their methods of violence in order to give the Conciliation Bill a chance, and, as just described, it had passed its second readingdebate with a majority of 167 and time for "proceeding effectively" with a similar Bill in all its stages had been promised. All the suffrage societies were working harmoniously for the same Bill and the Women's Liberal Federation were cooperating with the suffrage societies, when suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, Mr. Asquith dealt us a characteristic blow. In reply to a deputation from the People's Suffrage Federation early in November he announced his intention of introducing during the coming session of 1912 the Electoral Reform Bill which he had foreshadowed in 1908; he said that in this Bill all existing franchises would be swept away, plural voting abolished and the period of residence reduced. The new franchise to be created was, he added, to be based on citizenship and votes were to be given to "citizens of full age and competent understanding," but no mention was made of the enfranchisement of women. On being asked what he intended to do about women's votes, he dismissed the subject with the remark that his opinions on the subject were well known and had suffered no change, but he reiterated the promise of "facilities" for the Conciliation Bill in the 1912 Session.

The situation, therefore, was briefly this: An agitation of ever-growing intensity and determination had for some years been carried on by women for their own enfranchisement and no agitation at all had been manifested by men for more votes for themselves; the Prime Minister's response to this situation was to promise legislation giving far larger and wider representation to men and none at all to women. No wonder that he provoked an immediate outburst of militancy! Stones were thrown and windows smashed all along the Strand, Piccadilly, Whitehall and Bond Street, and members of the Government went about in perpetual apprehension of personal assault.

The indignation of the Constitutional suffragists and of the Women's Liberal Federation with Mr. Asquith was quite as real as that of the "suffragettes" but it sought a different method of expression. Some knowledge of this probably reached him, as for the first time in our experience all the suffrage societies and the W.L.F. were invited by the Prime Minister to form a deputation to him on the subject. What we were accustomed to wassending an urgent demand to him to receive us in a deputation and to get his reply that he believed "no useful purpose would be served" by yielding to our request; but now, in November, 1911, he was inviting us to come and see him! Of course we went. His whole demeanor was much more conciliatory than it had ever been before. He acknowledged the strength and intensity of the demand of women for representation and admitted that in opposing it he was in a minority both in his Cabinet and in his party; finally he added that, although his personal opinions on the subject prevented him from initiating and proposing the change which women were pressing for, he was prepared to bow to and acquiesce in the considered judgment of the House of Commons, and he stated that this course was quite in accordance with the best traditions of English public life. The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, of which I was the mouthpiece, then put the following questions:

(1) Is it the intention of the Government that the Reform Bill shall go through all its stages in 1912?

(2) Will the Bill be drafted in such a way as to admit of amendments introducing women on other terms than men?

(3) Will the Government undertake not to oppose such amendments?

(4) Will the Government regard any amendment enfranchising women, which is carried, as an integral part of the Bill be defended by the Government in all its later stages?

To all these questions, as they were put severally, Mr. Asquith replied "Yes, certainly."

Mr. Lloyd George, who was present, was pressed by the deputation to speak but did so only very briefly. He was known as an opponent of the Conciliation Bill but had voted for it in 1911 because it was so drafted as to admit of free amendment. He made no secret of his conviction that the wider enfranchisement afforded by amendment of the Government measure would, to use his own expression, "torpedo" the Conciliation Bill. Almost immediately after the deputation thus described he sent the following message to the N.U.W.S.S.: "The Prime Minister's pronouncement as to the attitude to be adopted by the Government towards the question seems to make the carrying of aWomen's Suffrage Amendment to next year's Franchise Bill a certainty. I am willing to do all in my power to help those who are labouring to reach a successful issue in the coming session. Next year provides the supreme opportunity and nothing but unwise handling of that chance can compass failure."

There was plenty of unwise handling, but not, as I am proud to think, from the constitutional suffragists. The first was the wild outburst of "militancy" already referred to. Mr. Lloyd George was pursued by persistent interruption and annoyance deliberately organised by the Women's Social and Political Union. A meeting he addressed at Bath, mainly devoted to advocacy of Women's Suffrage, on Nov. 24, 1911, was all but turned into a bear garden by these deliberately planned and very noisy interruptions. Not to be outdone in "unwise handling" Mr. Asquith next had his innings. He received an anti-suffrage deputation on Dec. 14, 1911, about three weeks after he had received the suffragists, and in the course of his remarks to them he said: "As an individual I am in entire agreement with you that the grant of the Parliamentary Vote to women in this country would be a political mistake of a very disastrous kind." This went far to invalidate the fair-seeming promises to us given about three weeks earlier. How could a man in the all-important position of Prime Minister pledge himself to use all the forces at the disposal of the Government to pass in all its stages through both houses a measure which might include the perpetration of "a political mistake of a very disastrous kind"? A member of Mr. Asquith's own party who took part in the anti-suffrage deputation interpreted this expression of his chief as an S.O.S. call to his followers in the House to deliver him from the humiliation of having to fulfil the promises he had given us. Every kind of intrigue and trick known to the accomplished parliamentarian was put into operation. Every Irish Nationalist vote was detached from support of the Bill. A description of one of these discreditable devices, among them an attempt to hold up the N.U.W.S.S. to public contempt as purveyors of "obscene" literature, will be found in a book by myself called The Women's Victory and After, published in 1920.

The first result of these intrigues was the defeat of the ConciliationBill, by 14 votes only, on March 28, 1912. This was hailed as an immense triumph by the anti-suffragists, as indeed in a sense it was, for exactly the same bill had been carried by the same House in 1911 by a majority of 167; but it was a triumph which cost the victors dear, especially when the tricks and perversions of truth came to light by which it had been achieved. From this time forward public opinion was more decided in our favour and the general view was that the Government had treated us shabbily.

The progress made by the Government in pressing forward their Electoral Reform Bill was not rapid. When it was at last introduced it was discovered to be not a Reform Bill, but in the main a Registration Bill. In the second reading debate Mr. Asquith described his Bill as one to enfranchise "male persons only," and said in regard to women that he could not conceive that the House would "so far stultify itself as to reverse the considered judgment it had already arrived at" earlier in the session. It was a "considered judgment" to defeat the Bill by 14 votes in 1912 but not a "considered judgment" to have it carried by 167 in 1911! Sir Edward Grey felt strongly that the House had placed itself in a very undesirable position, but the Conciliation Bill was defeated and Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Lloyd George and the leading suffragists in the Government continued to assure us that the inclusion of Women's Suffrage through an amendment of the Government Bill presented us with by far the best prospect of success we had ever had. We worked as we had never worked before to secure the success of this amendment or series of amendments. The session of 1912 had lasted from January to December without the committee stage of the Government Bill being reached. This interminable session overflowed into 1913 and the debate on the suffrage amendments of the Government Bill was dated to begin on January 24th of that year. On January 23rd, however, in reply to a question, the Speaker [Mr. Lowther] indicated that he would probably be compelled to rule that if the Bill were amended so as to include the enfranchisement of women, he might feel obliged to rule that in this form it was not the same bill of which the second reading had been carried in July, andit would, therefore, have to be withdrawn and re-introduced! This ruling he confirmed on the following Monday, January 27th. Therefore, every one of the fair promises which Mr. Asquith had given us in November, 1911, proved to be absolutely worthless.

I do not accuse Mr. Asquith of anything worse at this stage than blundering. He was manifestly confounded and distressed by the Speaker's ruling. Whether this were due to the naming of the Bill or to Mr. Asquith's own speech on the second reading, "This is a bill to enfranchise male persons only, etc.", we were not able to discover; but the net result was that he found himself in a position in which it was impossible for him to fulfil the promises he had given us. Under these circumstances he did not take the only honorable course open to him, i.e., of sending for us once more and asking us what we should consider a reasonable equivalent for these unredeemed promises. He had made these promises five years back and had repeated them from time to time ever since. Now they were null and void. The only reasonable equivalent would have been the introduction of a Government Reform Bill which included the enfranchisement of women. Probably Mr. Asquith knew that this was what we should urge; for he not only did not send for us but he refused to see us or consult us in any way. He tossed us, without our consent, the thoroughly worthless substitute of a day for a Private Member's Bill, such as we had had experience of time and again ever since 1870. The N.U.W.S.S. indignantly rejected this offer and took no interest in the proposed Bill, which was, however, introduced and given a day for second reading in May, 1913, when it was defeated by a majority of 47.

This discreditable series of incidents did far more harm to the Government than to the suffrage cause, as was very conclusively shown in the press. "Punch," for instance, had a cartoon on Feb. 5, 1913, representing a dance in which Mr. Asquith figured as a defaulting partner in a corner and trying to escape from an indignant woman who said, "You've cut my dance!" This was indicative of the general trend of public opinion.

In the previous year the N.U.W.S.S. had placed a new interpretation on its election policy. This was to support in electionsirrespective of party "the best friend of Women's Suffrage." After the defeat of the Conciliation Bill in 1912 when 42 so-called "friends" voted against it, we resolved in the future that the best friend was a man who was not only personally satisfactory but who also belonged to a party which had made Women's Suffrage a plank in its platform. This meant support for the Labour Party and for the development of this policy we raised a special fund called the Election Fighting Fund and took active steps in canvassing and speaking for Labour men whenever they presented themselves as candidates for vacant seats. Our movement had now become the storm centre of English politics. A well known labour leader wrote of the political situation in February, 1913, as follows: "The Women's Suffrage question will now dominate British politics until it is settled. It has within the last few weeks killed a great Government measure and it has done more than that. It has made it impossible for this or any succeeding Liberal Government to deal with franchise reform without giving votes to women. The Labour Party will see to that."

In 1913 the N.U.W.S.S. organised the greatest public demonstration it had ever made. We called it The Pilgrimage. It meant processions of non-militant suffragists, wearing their badges and carrying banners, marching towards London along eight of the great trunk roads. These eight processions, many of them lasting several weeks, stopped at towns and villages on their way, held meetings, distributed literature and collected funds. It was all a tremendous and unprecedented success, well organised and well done throughout. (Described in detail in The Women's Victory.) The Pilgrimage made a very great impression and was favourably commented on in the organs of the press which had never helped us before. We finished The Pilgrimage with a mass meeting in Hyde Park on July 26, where we had seventeen platforms, one for each of our federations. We asked Mr. Asquith and the leaders of other political parties to receive a deputation from The Pilgrimage the following week. They all accepted with the exception of Mr. John Redmond. When Mr. Asquith received us his demeanor was far less unfriendly than it had ever been before. He admittedthat the offer of a Private Member's Bill was no equivalent for the loss of a place in a Government Bill. He said: "Proceed as you have been proceeding, continue to the end," and said if we could show that "a substantial majority of the country was favourable to Women's Suffrage, Parliament would yield, as it had always hitherto done, to the opinion of the country."

In May, 1914, suffrage ground was broken in the House of Lords by Lord Selborne and Lord Lytton, who introduced a bill on the lines of the Conciliation Bill, the latter making one of the most powerful speeches in our support to which we had ever listened. The Bill was rejected by 104 to 60, but we were more than satisfied by the weight of the speeches on our side and by the effect produced by them. Another important event which greatly helped our movement in 1914 was the protest of the National Trade Union Congress on February 12th against the Government's failure to redeem its repeated pledges to women and demanding "a Government Reform Bill which must include the enfranchisement of women." This was followed by resolutions passed at the annual conference of the National Labour Party re-affirming its decision "to oppose any further extension of the franchise to men in which women were not included."

There must, according to law, have been a General Election in 1915 and the remarkable progress of the women's cause made us feel confident that a Parliament would be elected deeply pledged to our support. Our friends were being elected and our enemies, including that worst type of enemy, the false friend and the so-called Liberal afraid of his own principles, were being rejected at by-elections in a manner that foreshadowed a great gain to suffrage forces at the General Election. Then suddenly, destroying all our hopes of success and jeopardizing the very existence of representative government and all forms of democracy throughout the world, came the outbreak of war; the entry of our own country and the resulting concentration of the vast majority of the British people, whether men or women, in the gigantic national effort which the successful resistance of such a foe demanded. August 4, 1914, was a heart-breaking day for us. Nevertheless, suffragists from the first faced the facts and saw clearly what their duty was. The "militants" instantlyabandoned every sort of violence. A large number of the more active members of their societies formed the Women's Emergency Corps, who were ready to undertake all kinds of national work which the exigencies of the situation demanded. The N.U.W.S.S. Executive Committee meeting on August 3, the day before our own country was actually involved, resolved to suspend immediately all political propaganda for its own ends. Under normal circumstances we should have summoned a Council meeting to discuss the situation and to determine the course to be taken by the Union. This being impossible owing to difficulties connected with railway communication we consulted our societies, then numbering over 500, by post, placing them in possession of our own views, viz.: that ordinary political work would have to be suspended during the war and suggesting that our best course would be to use our staff and organising capacity in promoting forms of work designed to mitigate the distress caused by the war. We felt that our members would desire to be of service to the Nation and that the N.U.W.S.S. had in their organisation a special gift which they could offer to their country. This view was endorsed by our societies with only two dissenting.

Back to Index Next