ground. Later, if persisted in, those who asked them were treated with shameful violence. A man at Bradford in 1911, brutally thrown out of a meeting by Liberal stewards, had his leg broken. Women were " frogmarched " out of meetings, and while thus absolutely helpless were violently struck on the face with fists or umbrellas by men in the audience. It should always be remem- bered that between 1905 and 1908 the militants never answered violence by violence; they suffered violence, but used none. In 1908 they definitely abandoned this policy of non-retaliation; to the last, however, they set limits for themselves, and never shed one drop of blood of either man or beast. But they smashed windows, set fire to churches and country mansions when they
- were empty ; burnt down the refreshment pavilion at Kew Gardens
. when no one was in it, destroyed the contents of letter-boxes and ! in one instance of a ballot-box at an election; slashed and cut the Rokeby Venus by Velasquez in the National Gallery and the i portrait of Henry James by Sargent in the Royal Academy, and i destroyed a case of pottery in the British Museum. On June 4 1 1913 Emily Wilding Davison tried to upset the Derby favourite during the race at Epsom, and died four days later from her injuries. Her funeral on June 14 was made the occasion of an imposing procession through London.
These and similar actions were intensely irritating, and the punishments meted out were correspondingly severe. But long before violence had been attempted groups of women had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for nothing worse than making speeches in the lobby of the House of Commons, or I shouting in the street. The severe sentences passed upon those who had been guilty of real violence were in the later stages rarely carried into effect; for the militants adopted the hunger strike, and after an interval of, in some cases, only a few days were released because public opinion would not have exonerated | the Government if these women had died in their hands. Parlia- ||ment then passed a piece of panic legislation called Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for 111 Health) Act 1912, immediately nicknamed the " Cat-and-Mouse Act," which enabled the j Government to rearrest the hunger strikers when they gave signs of restored vitality. The principal result of this Act was the ridicule which it created at the expense of the Government. Public opinion was greatly excited by all these proceedings. Suffrage was a universal subject of conversation. Anti-suffragists had believed that " militancy " would kill the suffrage move- Ik ment, and therefore the utmost publicity had been given to every I act of violence and to every intemperate speech. But so far from killing the suffrage movement the all-pervading discussion stimu- 't I lated it as nothing else had ever done. Everyone, high and low, was talking about woman suffrage, arguing either for or against it with vehemence and conviction.
It was a difficult time for the law-abiding suffragists. They objected to " militancy " because they believed the use of physi- cal force as political propaganda was invariably mischievous. They were firmly determined to roast their pig, but not to do it by burning down their house. Over and over again the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies issued strongly-worded I [protests against " militancy," and they excluded militants from i | membership of their societies. They deprecated the use of " frightfulness," whether used by the militants or against them, 1 and urged repeatedly that the real cure for violence was the re- I dress of the grievances which had given rise to it. The fact that > men under somewhat similar circumstances had been much i more violent and destructive did not create the desire to imitate them. Serious differences thus naturally arose between the two i branches of the suffrage movement. Each held firmly to its own j view of the case. The militants bitterly resented criticism and | made organized efforts to prevent its expression by trying to . | break up the meetings of the law-abiding suffragists. One effect " this situation was that for the first time since 1886 woman Irage bills were defeated in the House of Commons, once in pi2 and once in 1913. But other circumstances had contrib- ted to these defeats. There were two general elections in 1910 i Jan. and December. Mr. Asquith and his party emerged vic- ous from each of them, but in the second his majority was
greatly reduced, having fallen from 334 to 124. He had promised at a public meeting in Dec. 1909, if returned to power, to bring in a Reform bill and to allow a woman suffrage amendment to the bill to be an open question for the House to decide. At a later date, in answer to a question in the House, he said, just before the second general election of 1910, that, if his Government were still in power, it " would give facilities for proceeding effectively with a woman suffrage bill, if so framed as to admit of free amend- ment." The Times parliamentary correspondent said that this made woman suffrage an issue before the country at the coming election, and that a majority for the Government would mean that Parliament had received a mandate to carry a measure to that effect. Mr. Asquith was again returned to power, and shortly after these two general elections, i.e. in July 1910 and in May 1911, the House of Commons carried by immense majorities second readings of the measure known as the Conciliation bill.
This bill was of a very limited character, proposing to enfran- chise only about one million women householders, and it was from the outset opposed by Mr. Lloyd George on the ground that it was not sufficiently democratic. The second reading in 1910 was, however, carried in spite of his opposition. After the general election in 1911 suffrage prospects seemed particularly bright; militancy had been suspended in order to give the Con- ciliation bill a chance; all the suffrage societies were working harmoniously together, and were relying on Mr. Asquith's promise that, if the bill were given a second reading, opportuni- ties should be afforded in the following session for " proceeding effectively " with its further stages. A bombshell from Mr. Asquith shattered these favourable prospects. He announced on Nov. 7 1911, to a deputation from the People's Suffrage Federa- tion, his intention of introducing during the session of 1912 the electoral Reform bill he had foreshadowed in 1908. He said that this bill would sweep away all existing franchises: that the new franchise would be based on citizenship, and votes were to be given to " citizens of full age and competent understanding," but no mention was made of women. Mr. Asquith, on being asked what his bill would do for them, dismissed the inquiry with the curt remark that his opinions on the subject were well known and had suffered no change; but he reiterated his promises of " facilities " for the Conciliation bill in the session of 1912. If he intended to provoke a return to militancy nothing could have been better calculated to do so. A violent outbreak at once took place. Windows were smashed in the principal shopping streets of London, and personal assaults were made on members of the Government. The constitutional suffragists were as angry as the militants, but had a different way of showing it. Many strong suffragists in the Women's Liberal Federation broke away from their party and gave all their energies to the suffrage cause. Some knowledge of this may have reached Mr. Asquith, for before mid-Nov. he took the unusual course of inviting represen- tatives of the whole woman suffrage movement, militant and non- militant, to attend in a deputation to him: this unprecedented invitation was at once accepted for Nov. 18. The N.U.W.S.S. prepared a series of four questions to put before him:
1. Was it the intention of the Government that the Reform bill should be passed through all its stages in the session of 1912?
2. Will the bill be drafted in such a manner as to admit of amend- ments introducing women on other terms than men?
3. Will the Government undertake not to oppose them?
4. Will the Government regard any amendment enfranchising women which is carried in the House of Commons as an integral part of the bill, to be defended by the Government in all its stages?
To each of these questions Mr. Asquith gave the answer, absolutely unqualified: "Certainly." He further said, referring to his own position:
"It is perfectly consistent with the self-respect and the best traditions of our public life that, in relation to a question which divides parties, not only the head of the Government but the Govern- ment itself should say that, if the House of Commons on its respon- sibility is prepared to transform or extend a measure which we are agreed in thinking necessary a measure for the franchise as re- gards men and to confer the franchise on women, we shall not only acquiesce in that proposal, but we shall treat it as the considered judgment of Parliament and shall make ourselves responsible for carrying it out."
