On June 12, 1910, I received a letter from Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, in which she told me that I had been made a paid organizer to the Union, at £2 a week, and that the committee wished to make this appointment retrospective for the past six months from January, 1910. I felt very much honoured and pleased. It enabled me to take a small flat in London near the Euston Road, so that I was not far from the office at Clement’s Inn and close, too, to a good many railway stations. It was quicker for me than having to go home to the country when I was on speaking tours, and also far more convenient for the London work.

In February, 1910, a truce was called after the elections. Mr. Gladstone, made Lord Gladstone, went to South Africa as Governor-General, and he was succeeded by Mr. Winston Churchill at the Home Office. Mr. Brailsford had spent much time and effort negotiating between all the Suffrage parties in the House of Commons, and he as secretary, and my brother, Lord Lytton, as president, negotiated a committee for the “Conciliation Bill.” This is the Bill in full:—

“The Conciliation Bill for Woman Suffrage.

“A Bill to confer the Parliamentary Franchise on Women.

“1. Every woman possessed of a household qualification within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act (1884) shall be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote for the county or borough in which the qualifying premises are situated.

“2. For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified by marriage from being registered as a voter, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be registered as voters in the same Parliamentary borough or county division.”

That is the Bill which was slightly modified in 1911, so as to remove any reasonable fear of plural or faggot voting. It looked as if the Conciliation Bill had everything in its favour and that it would pass. Ninety city, town and county councils, and thirty district councils petitioned or passed resolutions that the Bill should become law. These included the city councils of Birmingham, Bradford, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield. In 1910 the Bill was carried on second reading by a majority of 110. In 1911 it was again read a second time and secured a majority of 167. Among those who voted for it were Mr. Birrell, Mr. John Burns, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Runciman; Mr. Balfour, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Wyndham; Mr. Barnes, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Snowden; Mr. Devlin, Mr. Healy, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. W. Redmond. All parties made friends over it.

On Friday, November 18, 1910, Mr. Asquith made a statement in the House of Commons omitting all reference to Woman Suffrage, but announcing the Dissolution for Monday, November 28. On learning that Mr. Asquith had definitely decided to shelve the Conciliation Bill, it was determined to send a Deputation to him forthwith. At the head were Mrs. Pankhurst, the founder of the W.S.P.U. and Mrs. Garatt Anderson, twice Mayor of Aldeburgh, who is one of the pioneer women doctors and sister of Mrs. Fawcett. Among other well-known women were Mrs. Hertha Ayrton, the distinguished scientist, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Saul Solomon, Mrs. Brackenbury, widow of General Brackenbury, over seventy years of age, Miss Neligan, who is seventy-eight years of age, the Hon. Mrs. Haverfield, and the Princess Sophia Dhuleep Singh. The Deputation was composed of 300 women, but was divided into detachments of twelve each. They were not received and were treated worse than any since the conflict between women and the Government began. The orders of the Home Secretary were, it appears, that the police were to be present, both in uniform and in plain clothes among the crowd, and that the women were to be thrown from one to the other. The police were guilty both of torture and of indecency. The women were accused of violence and mendacity. Reports were afterwards made by Lord Robert Cecil, K.C., and Mr. Ellis J. Griffith, K.C., M.P., on the women whom they had examined. Lord Robert Cecil writes in his letter to the Times:—

“All that can be said at present is that the women strenuously deny that they were guilty of any such violence. If they were, it is at least curious that they were not immediately arrested, and that, as I understand, no evidence of any serious assault was offered against any of those who were ultimately brought before the Court....

“Mr. Churchill accuses them of mendacity. Such an accusation requires more than the ipse dixit of a Minister to support it. Nor is it in accordance with the principles of British justice to reject without investigation the evidence of scores of apparently respectable women.

“In conclusion, may I ask whether anyone thinks that if the Deputation had consisted of unarmed men of the same character, their demand for an inquiry would have been refused? Who can doubt that the Home Secretary and the other Ministers would have tumbled over one another in their eagerness to grant anything that was asked? Are we then to take it as officially admitted that in this country there is one law for male electors and another for voteless women?

“Yours obediently,
“Robert Cecil.”

Mr. Ellis Griffith wrote at the end of his letter to the Times:—

“It is certainly difficult, under the circumstances, to bring responsibility home to individuals, but I am amply satisfied that there was unnecessary and excessive violence used against the women who took part in the Deputation, and that they were assaulted in a way that cannot be justified.

“Under these circumstances, I strongly support a searching and impartial inquiry....

“Yours faithfully,
“Ellis J. Griffith.”

The Home Secretary refused all idea of a public inquiry.

The morning after the Deputation, Saturday, November 19, 1910, those who had been arrested the night before were all dismissed; it was thought bad election tactics to be responsible for the imprisonment of women of good reputation who were merely fighting for their freedom.

Mr. Asquith on Friday, November 18, promised that he would make a statement about the Women’s Bill on the following Tuesday. On Tuesday, November 22, accordingly, it was made: “The Government will, if they are still in power, give facilities in the next Parliament for effectively proceeding with a Bill which is so framed as to admit of free amendment.” The statement fulfilled none of the conditions which had been made by the W.S.P.U. We held that the pledge must be to give full facilities for a Woman Suffrage Bill next Session—next Parliament was a mockery of a pledge. The Bill in question must be no more extended in scope than the Bill introduced by Mr. Shackleton or the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill introduced two years ago by Mr. Stanger. A pledge to give facilities to a Bill on a so-called democratic basis would be worthless, it would not have a chance of passing through either House of Parliament.

The House rose immediately when Mr. Asquith had made his statements. The women waited this pronouncement in the Caxton Hall, and on receipt of it marched to Downing Street, Mrs. Pankhurst at their head, to see Mr. Asquith. Here the detachment of police at first was small and the line was broken by the onrush of the women. But reinforcements of police rapidly arrived and a severe struggle ensued. Many women were hurt who were thrown about the street or crushed, and there were 150 to 160 charged at the police court the next day. In the evening parties of women visited the houses of the Cabinet and threw stones, breaking some of their windows. Mr. Muskett, who prosecuted the next day, withdrew all the cases of “simple obstruction,” and only allowed the cases of “stone-throwing and assault.” From the day of “Black Friday,” as November 18, 1910, was called, stone-throwing became easy to the women—it ensured arrest instead of being assaulted and injured.

This was the eve of the election. The policy of the W.S.P.U. was to oppose all Liberal candidates unless they could get a definite pledge from the Prime Minister that, if in power, he would allow the Conciliation Bill to be taken through all its stages next Session. The Liberals were returned, still commanding a Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons contained an even larger majority of members prepared to vote for a practicable scheme of Woman Suffrage, on the lines of the Conciliation Bill. In May, 1911, this Bill was brought in by Sir Alfred Mond; it triumphantly passed the second reading by a majority of 167.

In June Lord Lytton had written to Mr. Asquith asking for assurances (1) that the facilities offered for next Session were intended as an effective opportunity for carrying the Bill, and not merely for academic discussion; (2) that the week offered would not be construed rigidly, and also that provided the Committee stage were got through in the time, additional days for report and third reading would be forthcoming; and (3) that there would be reasonable opportunities for making use of the closure. To this Mr. Asquith replied (on Friday, June 16, 1911):—

“My dear Lytton,—In reply to your letter on the subject of facilities for the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, I would refer you to some observations recently made in a speech at the National Liberal Club by Sir Edward Grey, which accurately express the intentions of the Government.

“It follows (to answer your specific inquiries) that ‘the week’ offered will be interpreted with reasonable elasticity, that the Government will interpose no obstacle to a proper use of the closure, and that if (as you suggest) the Bill gets through Committee in the time proposed, the extra days required for report and third reading would not be refused.

“The Government, though divided in opinion on the merits of the Bill, are unanimous in their determination to give effect not only in the letter but in the spirit to the promise in regard to facilities which I made on their behalf before the last General Election.

“Yours, etc.,
“H. H. Asquith.”

This letter was further certified in August:—

“My dear Lytton,—I have no hesitation in saying that the promises made by, and on behalf of, the Government, in regard to giving facilities for the ‘Conciliation Bill,’ will be strictly adhered to, both in letter and spirit.

“Yours sincerely,
“H. H. Asquith.

“August 23, 1911.”

This promise, after the phenomenal majority in the House of Commons, was a solemn pledge made by Mr. Asquith to be fulfilled in the next year. It was a pledge which the friends of women took absolutely in good faith. On the strength of it, the truce was prolonged in 1911 with belief in the guarantee for the following year.

On November 7, 1911, Mr. Asquith announced to a deputation of the People’s Suffrage Federation that he was going to bring in a Manhood Suffrage Bill next Session. There was no agitation or demand for more votes for men; this was in answer to the widespread demand of votes for women. The majority already recorded for Woman Suffrage in the House of Commons was composed of members of all political parties. The Government’s present policy destroyed this composite majority by alienating Unionists and moderate Liberals. In other words, it rendered impossible the non-party solution of the Woman Suffrage question, towards which we had been working for months. We consented to the Conciliation Bill because it gave virtual equality to women with men, and because it made inevitable the equality of the sexes under any subsequent franchise measure. But we absolutely refused to accept the Conciliation Bill as the accompaniment of Manhood Suffrage Bill.

We and many other of the Suffrage Societies were received in deputation by Mr. Asquith, only to be told the case over again. He had not changed his opinion since 1908. The Manhood Suffrage Bill would make no difference to us, who could bring in an amendment!

The leaders of the W.S.P.U. determined to go on a deputation to the House of Commons on Tuesday, November 21, with Mrs. Pethick Lawrence to lead them. I intended to accompany them as a stone-thrower; the police on Black Friday (1910) had made the other way—that of going on a deputation—impossible for me, unless I were to see death, and this seemed useless. It was an understood thing that this time, if we were imprisoned, we should not hunger-strike.