"Woman Suffrage. - In the earlier article (under Women, 28.786), the story of the movement for woman suffrage was brought down to 1910. The narrative may here be continued for the United Kingdom up to the passing of the Representation of the People Act in 1918, with some estimate of its results up to 1920, followed by accounts of the growth of woman suffrage in other countries.
UNITED KINGDOM In the later years of the agitation in Great Britain the constitutional suffragists concentrated their efforts on the formation of public opinion: they sought to form a non-party, non-militant suffrage society in every parliamentary constituency and brought local influence to bear in contested elections to obtain promises of support from candidates of all political parties. They were so far successful as to secure a majority of members pledged to their support in every House of Commons elected since 1886: and in that year, and also in 1897, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911, woman suffrage bills passed their second reading, but made no further progress, each successive Government declining to give facilities for the passage of the bills into law. At this period the movement was receiving very valuable support from platform, press and pulpit, besides remarkable help from the theatre in plays by leading dramatists of the day.
In Parliament for several years important support had been given to woman suffrage by leaders of the Conservative party. Among them may be mentioned three successive Conservative Prime Ministers - Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury and Mr. Arthur Balfour - besides the 7th Duke of Rutland and Lord. Iddesleigh, while the younger generation were ably represented by the Earl of Lytton, Lord Robert and Lord Hugh Cecil, and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton. On the Liberal side the leaders, with a few important exceptions (which included Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Edward Grey), were against it. Among the strongest Liberal opponents during the generation before the World War were to be found Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Sir W. Harcourt, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Asquith.
In 1908 the death of the suffragist Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and the succession of the anti-suffragist Mr. Asquith to the Liberal premiership were very disadvantageous to suffrage prospects in the House of Commons. This misfortune. was, however, partly counteracted by the emergence of the Labour party, the leading members of which were convinced suffragists; in a short time they induced the party to make woman suffrage a plank in their platform.
The question of " militancy " on the part of a section of the woman suffragists was mishandled from the first by the Liberal Government which came into power in 1906. The Women's Social and Political Union, led by Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel, which came into existence about this time, confined its activities to asking inconvenient questions of members of the Government at public meetings. This was in itself a perfectly legitimate method of propaganda. Instead of meeting it by giving reasonable answers, the questions put were in many instances met only by shouts of anger and disapproval or, when written on paper, were contemptuously torn and thrown on the 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 remembered 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 portrait of Henry James by Sargent in the Royal Academy, and destroyed a case of pottery in the British Museum. On June 4 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 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. Parliament then passed a piece of panic legislation called Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill Health) Act 1912, immediately nicknamed the " Cat-and-Mouse Act," which enabled the 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 movement, and therefore the utmost publicity had been given to every act of violence and to every intemperate speech. But so far from killing the suffrage movement the all-pervading discussion stimulated 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 physical 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 protests against " militancy," and they excluded militants from membership of their societies. They deprecated the use of " frightfulness," whether used by the militants or against them, and urged repeatedly that the real cure for violence was the redress of the grievances which had given rise to it. The fact that men under somewhat similar circumstances had been much more violent and destructive did not create the desire to imitate them. Serious differences thus naturally arose between the two branches of the suffrage movement. Each held firmly to its own 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 of this situation was that for the first time since 1886 woman suffrage bills were defeated in the House of Commons, once in 1912 and once in 1913. But other circumstances had contributed to these defeats. There were two general elections in 1910 - in Jan. and December. Mr. Asquith and his party emerged victorious 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 amendment." 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 enfranchise 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 Conciliation 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, opportunities 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 191r, to a deputation from the People's Suffrage Federation, 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 representatives of the whole woman suffrage movement, militant and nonmilitant, 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 amendments 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 Government itself should say that, if the House of Commons on its responsibility is prepared to transform or extend a measure which we are agreed in thinking necessary - a measure for the franchise as regards 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." Twenty-six days after this Mr. Asquith received a deputation of anti-suffragists to whom he gave free rein to an expression of his entire sympathy with their position, and to whom he declared that he regarded " the grant of the parliamentary franchise to women as a political mistake of a very disastrous kind." It was never disclosed how he could reconcile his promise to the suffragists to make himself and his Government responsible, if the House so desired, for carrying woman suffrage, with his belief that it would prove a political mistake of a disastrous kind. His words to the second deputation went far to make his promises to the first worthless; many of his followers interpreted his meaning to be that he relied on them to deliver him, as one of them expressed it, from " the humiliation " of having to keep his word. The first step in his deliverance would be the defeat of the Conciliation bill, and the usual parliamentary devices were employed to secure this end. One of these was to detach from the support of the bill the members of the Irish Nationalist party. This was done by making them believe that the success of woman suffrage would break up the Government and thus prevent the third ratification by the Commons of the Home Rule bill necessary to secure (under the Parliament Act) its passage into law notwithstanding its rejection by the House of Lords. These tactics, aided by a coal strike which caused the absence of 13 Labour members in their constituencies, were successful, and the Conciliation bill, which had been carried on second reading on May 5 1911 by 2S5 to 88, was defeated on March 28 1912 by 222 to 208. It was a heavy blow to the women's cause, and the most perturbing feature to suffragists in this defeat was the conviction that the same unscrupulous tactics which had secured it would be put into operation against the woman suffrage amendments to the Government Reform bill.
When this was produced it was called a Franchise and Registration bill. It came on for second reading on July 12 1912. In his speech Mr. Asquith took full advantage of the recent defeat of the Conciliation bill. He said: " This bill does not propose to confer the franchise on women; whatever extensions of the franchise it makes are to male persons only." He then referred to the defeat of woman suffrage in March as the " considered judgment of the House," and he dismissed as "an altogether improbable hypothesis the possibility that the House would stultify itself by reversing this judgment during the same session." Notwithstanding this ominous warning Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Edward (afterwards Viscount) Grey continued to be confident that amendments to the Government bill gave suffragists the best chance they had ever had of parliamentary victory. The bill itself, however, made no further progress during 1912; the protracted session lasted all through that year and overflowed into 1913; it was officially announced that committee stage would be taken on Jan. 24. All possible plans were elaborated by the real friends of woman suffrage both inside and outside Parliament to ensure the success of one or other of the suffrage amendments. But the parliamentary air was still thick with intrigue, and many and circumstantial were the rumours that the success of any of the woman suffrage amendments would mean the resignation of anti-suffrage ministers and the break-up of the Government. No official contradiction was given to these rumours until the day before the House was expected to go into committee on the bill.
But the defeat of the bill did not proceed from this source. Three days from Jan. 24 had been allotted for the discussion of the woman suffrage amendments. This stage was, however, never reached. On Jan. 23 Mr. Bonar Law asked the Speaker to give a ruling on the point whether the Government's own amendments, regarding the occupation franchise for men, did not so far alter the bill from that which had received a second reading in July as to make it a new measure and necessitate its withdrawal and reintroduction in its new form. In his reply the Speaker intimated that this was his view, and added that there were " other amendments regarding female suffrage which of course would make a huge difference to the bill if they were inserted." The bill was killed by this ruling. Mr. Asquith did not mend the situation by his treatment of the suffragists, from whom he refused to receive a deputation, and they were more incensed against him than ever when, in lieu of what he himself called " the best chance they ever had," he only offered parliamentary time for the discussion of yet another private member's bill. All the suffrage societies repudiated this offer and did nothing to support the bill, which was brought forward in May 1913 and defeated by 266 votes to 219.
These events, the defeat of the Conciliation bill in March 1912 and the fiasco of the Government bill in Jan. 1913, convinced the N.U.W.S.S. that nothing would now be of any use but a Government bill with the whole weight of the party behind it. They accordingly gave a new interpretation to their election policy. This was, and continued to be, to support the best friend of woman suffrage; but events had proved that a suffrage candidate who belonged to a suffrage party was a better friend than a suffrage candidate whose party was either hostile or neutral. The council governing the N.U.W.S.S. therefore resolved " that in judging which of the two pro-suffrage candidates should be supported in an election, the official attitude of the party to which the candidate belongs should be taken into consideration." An analysis of the division when the Conciliation bill had been defeated showed that 42 members who had been supported by the N.U.W.S.S. as " best friends of woman suffrage " (mostly followers of Mr. Asquith) had voted against it. When party pulled one way and voteless women pulled the other, party proved the stronger. As Labour was the only party which had definitely madesuffrage part of its programme, this change threw the influence of the N.U.W.S.S. in elections definitely on the side of Labour; and a special fund, called the election fighting fund, was formed for the support of Labour candidates. The N.U.W.S.S. further resolved under no circumstances to support Government candidates, and to endeavour by all legitimate means to strengthen any party which adopted woman suffrage as part of its programme. By the adoption of this policy they succeeded in 16 months in defeating six Government candidates in by-elections, making a difference of 12 in divisions. They had also succeeded in each of the elections concerned in making the whole place ring with the suffrage agitation. Public opinion moved rapidly and strongly in the suffrage direction, the general view being that suffragists had received less than fair play at the hands of Mr. Asquith and his Government.
A " pilgrimage " organized by the N.U.W.S.S. in 1913 received a remarkable degree of support from the towns and villages traversed on the seven routes by which it approached London. But the N.U.W.S.S. were convinced that a free vote of the House of Commons on their question was an impossibility as long as there was a Prime Minister who was ardently opposed to his own principles when applied to women. They were therefore determined to do everything in their power to reduce Mr. Asquith's majority. They believed that their election-fighting policy gave them an effective and constitutional method of doing this, and looked forward to helping to defeat his party in the general election which, but for the World War, must have taken place not later than 1915. They were full of work in preparation for this, when on Aug. 4 1914 the overwhelming catastrophe of the World War broke out, not only destroying all opportunity of suffrage work but jeopardizing the very existence of representative institutions in Europe.
Suffragists shared to the full in the solemn national consciousness that every ounce of strength would be needed in the gigantic effort which the successful prosecution of the war demanded. Indeed, suffragists realized this more quickly than the Government, which for many months seemed to believe that the war could be carried on solely by the efforts of the male half of the nation, without disturbance of the domestic calm which they believed to be the only legitimate role of the female half: for offers of help from women to provide, and staff hospitals to supply, women for work in public offices, thus leaving an additional number of young men free for military service, were plentifully douched with cold water.
Nevertheless suffragists, whether militant or non-militant, quickly faced the facts and clearly saw what their duty was. The militants instantly abandoned every sort of violence and organized themselves for public service. They formed a Women's Emergency Corps, ready to undertake all kinds of national work which the exigencies of the time required. Others, both militant and non-militant, in spite of official discouragement undertook the organization of hospital units entirely officered by women (see Women'S War Work). The N.U.W.S.S. committee on Aug. 3 resolved to suspend immediately all political propaganda and to use their staff and organizing power in mitigating the distress caused by the war. Their societies, numbering over 500, were consulted by post, and all but two approved this course.
No one claims for suffrage women that they were in any degree singular in the devoted work which they gave to their country during the war. The suffragists were earliest in the field because they were already organized and accustomed to team-work. Women of all classes and all parties threw themselves with zeal and efficiency into every kind of useful patriotic work. Industrial women were beyond all praise, working as they had never worked before, early and late, Sundays and weekdays, to supply the armies with every kind of military equipment. Everyone who came into contact with them bore testimony to their splendid efficiency in departments of skilled work from which before the war they had been rigidly excluded. In March 1915 the Government concluded an Agreement with the trade unions, known as the Treasury agreement, to suspend during the war, in face of the national emergency, the rules excluding women from most of the skilled trades. The Treasury on its part gave a promise not to use the women as a reservoir of cheap labour, and agreed to give women the same wages as men for the same output. This gave an important stimulus to the principle of equal pay for equal work, and went some way also in the direction of establishing industrial freedom for women. The courage of the women in the dangerous trades was as marked as their LLefficiency. On one occasion 26 women were killed and 30 injured by an explosion; those who remained uninjured displayed the greatest coolness and discipline, and were prompt both in helping the wounded and in continuing the work of the factory. The legend of the innate timidity of women was thus undermined. The tide in this direction rose so high that even Mr. Asquith was floated by it, and in speaking in Oct. 1915 in the House of the heroic death of Edith Cavell, he said: " She has taught the bravest man among us a supreme lesson of courage; yes, and there are thousands of such women, but a year ago we did not know it." All through 1916 evidence of the conversion of former opponents of women's enfranchisement poured into the suffrage offices. Many of these conversions were of M.P.s, eminent leaders of the press, railway managers, commercial and financial magnates. Liberals very often pleaded militancy as an excuse for their former blindness; Conservatives, in the main, said simply: " I formerly opposed the granting of the vote to women; I thought men by themselves maintained the state; I was wrong; the women have served their country so magnificently that henceforth I shall support their having the vote." There is no doubt that by 1915-6 the country was by a great majority favourable to the enfranchisement of women. Nevertheless it would have been impossible to induce Parliament to pass a great Reform bill during the war if it had not been that the electoral position of millions of men, caused by their services to their country, was so anomalous as to amount to a public scandal. The parliamentary register, by the direct orders of the Government, had not been revised since 1913. By 1916 it was completely out of date. By-elections had;'proved its unrepresentative character and it would have been a moral impossibility to take a general election upon it. There were at this time the names of about 8,000,000 men on the register. Of these nearly 7,000,000 qualified as occupiers. The occupation franchise necessitated that the qualifying premises should have been continuously " occupied " by the voter for 12 months since the last 15th July. This meant that a large proportion of the 5,000,000 young men who had voluntarily joined the New Armies since Aug. 4 1914 would, in consequence of their patriotic services, have lost their claim to the parliamentary vote. The men facing death daily, the very men to whom the country was most indebted, would be voteless, whilst those who had evaded similar sacrifices retained their electoral qualification. The position was intolerable, but it was not at first clear how best to amend it. Proposals were made by some M.P.s to create a new franchise based on naval or military service. But this received little general support. The questions: " Why exclude industrial service?" and " What about the services of women ?" received no satisfactory answer. Mr. Asquith's Government repeatedly tried to deal with the situation by Special Register bills. These efforts were unsuccessful. Each successive proposal was rejected by the House of Commons with growing symptoms of exasperation. The House wanted a Reform bill; it demanded a new electorate on democratic lines. The Government wanted a Reform bill too, but appeared to believe they could get one to their liking by calling it a Special Register bill. It was long before they abandoned their efforts to get one thing by calling it another. On Aug. 14 1916 Mr. Asquith, on introducing yet another Special Register bill, announced his conversion to woman suffrage; he based it on the ground that when the war was over it would be necessary to revise industrial conditions and that in his view women had a special claim to be heard on the many questions which would directly affect their interests. It was obvious that this was no new condition. Ever since Parliament existed measures had come before it vitally affecting the well-being of women, but on which they had no constitutional means of making their claims heard. But it was not the business of suffragists to point this out. The main difficulty at the moment arose from the plausible plea that, however desirable parliamentary reform might be, it was not the time during the greatest war in history, with the issue still hanging in the balance, to recast the representative system of the country. The reply has just been indicated. The new register and the new qualifications were needed at once unless millions of the most desirable male citizens were to be disfranchised. A good deal of iteration was needed to hammer this into people's heads, and to the end, " This is not the time," continued to be the only effective weapon used against women's enfranchisement.
Mr. Walter (later Lord) Long found a way out of the impasse. He suggested the appointment of a non-party conference, consisting of members of both Houses, selected and presided over by the Speaker, to consider the whole subject of electoral reform including woman suffrage. Mr. Asquith concurred and the House agreed. The conference began its sitting in Oct. 1916 and handed in its report on Jan. 28 1917. In the interval Mr. Lloyd, George had succeeded Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, a change very favourable to immediate action in the direction of woman suffrage. The Speaker's conference unanimously recommended a new franchise for men amounting practically to manhood suffrage; for women it recommended, but not unanimously, household suffrage, including wives of householders, a higher age-limit for women and their admission to the university franchise. This was the scheme subsequently adopted by Parliament. The object of the high age-limit (30) for women was to produce a constituency in which male voters were in a substantial majority. It was believed by suffrage members of the conference that the acceptance of this was essential to success. The anticipated proportion of women to men in the new electorate was as 2 to 3. This expectation proved practically correct. The new register published in 1919 gave the exact numbers: men 12,913,160; women 8,479,156. It may here be mentioned that the United Kingdom is the only country, out of the 28 where women are' enfranchised, which created a difference in the qualifications for men and women.
The parliamentary history of the measure based on the recommendations of the Speaker's conference may, as regards woman suffrage, be here sketched. Within a fortnight of his becoming Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George intimated to the leaders of the N.U.W.S.S. that he was keen to go forward at once in the direction of women's enfranchisement. This was a month before the Speaker's conference handed in its report. The object was to get an agreed measure supported by every party in the House. This was achieved. On March 28 1917 Mr. Asquith moved a resolution in Parliament calling on the Government to introduce a Representation of the People bill based on the recommendations of the Speaker's conference. Woman franchise was the subject of all the speeches, and the leader of every party supported the enfranchisement of women; the opposition was of the feeblest, and the motion was carried by 3 41 to 62.
When the bill (see Women, Legal Status Of) was debated, the second reading was carried by 32 9 to 40, and Clause 4 (enfranchising women) was passed by 385 to 55, or 7 to 1, with a majority within each party into which the House was divided; and again in the last trial of strength the anti-suffrage Die-hards were reduced to a mere handful, the numbers being 214 to 17. After this the N.U.W.S.S. felt the ground sufficiently solid beneath their feet to place a new weight upon it, and, in conjunction with many other women's societies, they urged that the local government franchise for women should be amended on the same principle which the House had already accepted for the parliamentary franchise - namely, to include not only householders but wives of householders. This was at first resisted by the Government, but suffragists outside the House and even many anti-suffragists worked vigorously for it and prevailed. The Government gave way, and the amended clause was accepted on Nov. 14 without a division.
The anti-suffragists in the Lords were a more formidable group than in the Commons. Lord Curzon, president of the AntiSuffrage Society, was the leader of the House and chief representative of the Government. The inclusion of women in the bill was vigorously resisted in the early stages of the bill by Lord Bryce and Lord Balfour of Burleigh; but there was no real fight upon it until the committee stage was reached and the women's clauses came on. After various skirmishes the battle was joined, an anti-suffrage amendment was moved, and there was a full-dress debate on Jan. 8, 9 and 10, 1918. Lord Curzon wound up the discussion. His speech, for the first five-sixths of it, was a tolerably familiar anti-suffrage oration, but the last sixth was cast in a different mould. He reminded the peers that the House of Commons was the sole constitutional representative of the feelings of the country; that in the Commons woman suffrage had been supported by large majorities of every party, " including the one to which most of your lordships belong." He invited them to contemplate what would happen if they came into collision with the other House on such a question as the representation of the people. He elaborated this point with skill, and ended by saying that to reject the clause would be to embark upon a conflict in which the Lords were certain to be worsted. He declined to be responsible for such a catastrophe, and announced his intention of not voting either for or against the amendment. This was the supreme moment for all suffragists present. They felt at once they were safe without disastrous conflict. The division was: for the clause, 134; against, 71. Thus ended the 50-years' struggle of British women for political liberty. The royal assent was given on Feb. 6 1918. The women's task had been a long one, but they were able to look back upon it with satisfaction. They had accomplished it without one scintilla of direct political power and without appeals to party passion. Their appeal had been to common sense and experience. They challenged their opponents to produce one instance of disastrous consequences following upon the women's vote. Moreover, they had not split the country into rival factions, for the bill was carried by the consent and cooperation of all parties.
Those who had worked for woman suffrage quickly perceived the difference it had made in the attitude of Parliament on almost every proposal which came before it. The parliamentary atmosphere completely changed. Measures for which women's societies had been working unsuccessfully for years, such as the Nurses' Registration bill, and an amended Midwives' bill, were taken up as Government measures, and passed through all their stages without difficulty. The grille in front of the ladies' gallery was removed, and women were admitted to the strangers' gallery. By the spontaneous action of the Government a bill was passed in Nov. 1918 to render women eligible to sit in Parliament. It was not in time to be of much use at the general election which followed in about a fortnight, but Viscountess Astor was returned for Plymouth in Nov. 1919 and Mrs. George Wintringham (widow of the previous member) for the Louth division of Lincs. in Sept. 1921. The increased number of women local electors gave a great impulse to the election of women as town and county councillors and the number of women chosen as mayors steadily increased.
The report of the Lambeth Conference 1920 showed that the Anglican communion was breathing the new atmosphere created by the women's vote. It acknowledged that in the past the Church had undervalued women and had too thanklessly used their work. It stated the belief of the Conference that the Church would be strengthened by making freer use of the spiritual gifts of women, and recommended the opening to them of the diaconate, definitely affirming that the diaconate is an " order," though a minor one, and that a woman appointed to it is not merely " set apart " but " ordained." These changes vary in importance, but they are significant in that they all point in one direction - giving wider scope to the powers and responsibilities of women and recognizing the use of women's work in every well-ordered state.
Before the general election of Dec. 1918 Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law had given a public promise, if returned to power, " to remove all the existing inequalities in the law between men and women "; but when the new Parliament opened there was no indication in the King's speech of proposed legislation in fulfilment of this pledge. The Labour party, therefore, in the. session of 19r9 introduced a measure called the Women's Emancipation bill, completely removing every legal inequality between men and women and giving women the vote on the same terms as men. This they carried, notwithstanding Government opposition, through all its stages in the House of Commons; the Government, however, defeated it in. the Lords, but not without providing a substitute - the Sex Disqualification Removal Act. This did not reopen the franchise question, but it gave women the right to study and practice law in both its branches, to act as magistrates and to sit on juries. It also made it clear to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge that they had the power to admit women to degrees and membership. Oxford availed itself of these powers without delay, but Cambridge in Dec. 1920 declined to take a similar step by 904 votes to 712, and repeated the refusal twice in 1921.
British Dominions Overseas The granting of woman suffrage in Canada was almost simultaneous with its victory in England. It was first adopted in the provinces (except Quebec) in 1916, and by the Dominion in 1917. Canada was well in front of the mother country in the matter of the eligibility of women. Miss MacAdams was elected to the Legislature of Alberta entirely by the votes of soldiers on duty in England and France in July 1917. The first Woman Suffrage Act for the Dominion limited the vote to women who had near relatives serving overseas. Full woman suffrage followed very quickly and almost without opposition in March 1918. In Feb. 1921 Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith of Vancouver was chosen as Speaker of the British Columbian legislature. She, however, declined the speakership, but took office as a member of the Cabinet.
New Zealand had enfranchised its women in 1893, and enfranchisement followed in the Commonwealth of Australia in 1902; therefore, with the exception of S. Africa, all the great selfgoverning overseas dominions of Britain have given political freedom to women. In March 1921 Mrs. Cowan was elected to the Parliament of Western Australia, the first woman M.P. to be elected in Australia.
Jamaica, S. Rhodesia and British East Africa gave votes to women in 1919 and 1920.
A strong effort was made by Indian women, supported by the Aga Khan and the Begum of Bhopal, to induce Parliament to incorporate in the Government of India Act the principle of woman suffrage. This effort was unsuccessful but not fruitless; important support was given in the House of Commons, and the Act, as finally passed, specifically left the question of woman suf frage to be decided, province by province, by the elected Legislatures of India herself. The newly created constituencies therefore have the power, when they choose to use it, of recognizing the full citizenship of women.
United States American women had been the earliest to make a definite organized struggle for political freedom, having started in 1848, but they were among the last to win. This was in part due to the U.S. Constitution, which can only be amended by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, and even then the amendment does not become operative until it has been ratified by three-fourths of the 48 states. American suffragists used to say to friends in Europe, " You have to convert one Parliament: we have to convert at least 37 Parliaments." The suffragists worked state by state until there were some 20 suffrage states. The greatest victory thus gained was that in the state of New York in 1917, after America had joined in the war. To win in the " Empire" state was a turning point in the whole struggle. After this, ultimate victory was certain, and the suffragists concentrated on carrying suffrage by constitutional amendment. Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 was the first important presidential candidate who supported woman suffrage. In 1916 and 1920 all the presidential candidates were suffragists. President Wilson during his second term aided the movement by taking the unprecedented course of himself twice urging the Federal amendment upon the attention of Congress. The necessary two-thirds majority was secured in the House of Representatives in Jan. 1918, but there was not a single vote to spare, and the narrow margin weakened the position, especially as the Senate had yet to be won; but in May 1919 the amendment was again brought up in the House and was carried by 304 to 48; and victory in the Senate followed almost immediately. Then came the battle for ratification in 36 states. The first stages were easy and rapid, states giving a unanimous vote in both Houses, and seven more in one or other of their chambers. After this the victories came more slowly until, in May 1920, 35 states had ratified and only one more was needed. The issue was much obscured by the impending presidential election. Both candidates were, as in 1916, suffragists. Both parties probably believed they would gain an advantage if they could plausibly claim that their efforts had given the final victory to women. Tennessee, a Democratic state, voted for the amendment by the necessary majorities in Aug. 1920; legal objections to its validity were, however, raised, but not in time to prevent the proclamation by the Secretary of State in Washington that the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had been carried. The legal points, however, awaited decision in the High Court. This gave an opportunity for a Republican state, Connecticut, to come to the rescue; a special session was called and the 19th Amendment was ratified on Sept. 21 1920. This made the Tennessee objections negligible for, valid or invalid, the 36th state had now ratified and the following article was added to the Constitution: " The right of citizens of the United States shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Thus after a struggle of 70 years the women's victory in America was completed.
OTIiER Countries Before the World War there were only four countries in the world where women exercised the political franchise; by the end of 1920 there were 28 - namely, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, British East Africa, Rhodesia, Jamaica, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Holland, Rumania, Serbia, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Hungary, the United States; and, among the states newly formed by the peace treaties of 1919, Poland, Esthonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, the Ukraine and Palestine.
The charter of the League of Nations contains a clause rendering women eligible for all appointments, including the secretariat. This clause did not remain a dead letter. Besides a large number; of women in less responsible positions, Dame Rachel Crowdy was made Director of the Section of National Health, to deal with the white-slave and opium traffic and with the anti-typhus campaign. At the first assembly of the League (Geneva Nov., Dec. 1920) Sweden appointed Mrs. Wicksell and Norway Dr. Kristine Bonnevie as alternate representatives of their respective countries; while Miss Forchhammer of Denmark brought forward in the full assembly the subject of the white-slave traffic and was successful in carrying her proposal to appoint a commission of three persons, one of whom must be a woman, to prosecute a special inquiry on the subject in the Near East. Miss Sophie Sanger was made head of the Legal Section of the International Labour Bureau. In Jan. 1921 Mrs. Wicksell was appointed a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission.
In seeking a cause for so great a development of principles for which comparatively small groups of women, without any direct political power, had worked in some countries for more than half a century, it may probably be found in one circumstance common to them all. In each country a national crisis had arisen on the issue of which the whole fate of the nation depended. National feeling in each had been stirred to its utmost depths. Under its pressure class feeling was minimized; all sorts and conditions of men and women had worked and suffered together for what each felt to be a cause of supreme importance. Men and women acted as friends and comrades when the issue was uncertain, and when the end came the men did not forget the work and the sacrifices of the women. In all countries, whether victors or vanquished, it was universally acknowledged that all through the anguish of the war the women had not been backward either in self-sacrifice, courage or capacity. It was this feeling which broke down the opposition to women's votes in nearly all the warring nations. It was felt also that men by themselves, as a well-known journalist expressed it, had made a mess of the world and needed helpers; men and women together being generally more successful than either men or women by themselves.
Authorities. - M. G. Fawcett, Women's Suf f rage (1911); M. G.
Fawcett, The Woman's Victory and After (1920); E. Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette (1910); the files of the Common Cause, now Woman's Leader, and of the International Suffrage News; Official Reports of Parliamentary Debates 1911-1919. (M. G. F.)
