Henry Brailsford started from the undeniable fact that the vast majority of Members of Parliament, even after the 1910 elections, favoured votes for women in some measure. Surely, he reflected, a deal could be arranged so that majority could be converted into enfranchising legislation. Tirelessly, he put together what became known as the Conciliation Committee, composed of 36 MPs all in favour of some sort of women's enfranchisement. The Committee cobbled together a Conciliation Bill that would grant the vote to some women. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst and the Pethick-Lawrences were suspicious of the new Bill but did not oppose it. Reluctantly, they agreed a temporary truce in which all militant activities, including byelection campaigning against Liberal candidates, would cease until the fate of the Conciliation Bill was clear.

The Pankhursts' suspicions were firmly based. The Bill was infected by the rotten compromises that had dogged so many similar measures in the past. Under its provisions, married women were barred from voting in the same constituency as their husbands. Lodgers, too, had no vote - a restriction that especially shocked Emmeline Pankhurst. Far too many concessions, she complained, were made to the Tories on the Committee, all of whom were terrified by the spectre of universal suffrage. Nevertheless, the truce held. After a two-day debate in July 1910, the Bill was carried by 109 votes, and immediately sent to a committee of the whole House, thus ensuring that at least until the second general election of 1910 it was doomed. Studying the division lists, Brailsford and his colleagues were surprised to see the name of Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, Home Secretary, as an opponent. Churchill had given an assurance to the Conciliation Committee that he would support the Bill, and had even allowed his name to be published as a supporter. Brailsford had the first clear sign of the duplicity of the Liberal politicians with whom he was dealing.

In November 1910, in protest at the failure of the first Conciliation Bill, Emmeline Pankhurst convened a huge meeting and enjoined the audience to "come with me to the House of Commons". Hundreds of women followed her. It looked as though the truce was at an end, but the brutality of the police that evening was disgusting enough to swing the pendulum of public opinion towards the protesters. Brailsford himself took charge of the collection of evidence from the demonstrators. His report contained enough irrefutable testimony not just of brutality by the police but also of indecent assault - now becoming a common practice among police officers - to shock many newspaper editors, and the report was published widely. Its impact went way beyond the bounds of the Woman's Press, which had commissioned it. The report, and the new Liberal Government that took office after the election of December 1910, also bought more time for the WSPU truce on militancy. The truce held while a new Conciliation Bill was published without the £10 property qualification for voting that had been in the first Bill, and without an express ban on husbands and wives voting together. In a sudden surge of public and parliamentary enthusiasm, the second reading of this Bill passed the Commons on 5 May 1911 with a majority of 167, and for a brief moment it seemed to Brailsford, Nevinson and company that their prodigious negotiations had been worthwhile:

They were reckoning without top Liberal politicians, in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George. Lloyd George loved high office. He was not remotely interested in votes for women, and he regarded the campaigners, especially the militant ones, as an infernal nuisance. On the other hand, he understood that the Conciliation Committee posed a problem for the Government. A Commons majority of 167 could hardly be ignored, especially when the Bill had been passed two years running. But Lloyd George was convinced that the chief effect of the Bill, if it became law, would be to hand more votes to the Tory Party. The problem called for what Lloyd George would have described as diplomacy, but quickly turned out to be duplicity. After stalling the WSPU all through the summer, Lloyd George started secret discussions with Brailsford and the Conciliation Committee. On 7 November 1911, he told the Committee he would support the Conciliation Bill if another Bill to introduce manhood suffrage failed. No such Bill had even been suggested, but, as if by magic, the following day Prime Minister Asquith announced that in the next session of Parliament he would introduce a Bill to enfranchise most men - a Bill that, he promised, could be amended to include women.

A ninth "Women's Parliament" was called for Caxton Hall on November 8th. It was dramatically timed. Ten days before, Asquith had disclosed the breakdown of the House of Lords Conference; the Parties had refused to agree. Whilst the women were assembling in the Caxton Hall, he announced his intention to dissolve Parliament ten days later, and to take all the time of the House for Government business. Keir Hardie requested two hours to discuss a resolution that the Government should leave time for the Conciliation Bill. Asquith promised to answer him in a few moments, but left the House without doing so.

Meanwhile three hundred women, in detachments of twelve, were approaching. Mrs. Pankhurst, Dr. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, one of the earliest women doctors, first of the Women Mayors and sister of Mrs. Fawcett, Hertha Ayrton, the scientist, Mrs. Cobden Anderson, three aged women : Miss Neligan, Mrs, Soul Solomon, and Mrs. Brackenbury, and the Princess Dhuleep Singh. Mrs. Pankhurst and this first company were allowed to reach the House and even taken to the Prime Minister's room; unable to see him, they returned to the Strangers' Entrance, Members of Parliament flocked out to speak to them - Lord Castlereagh moved an amendment on the lines of Keir Hardie's motion. It was debated for an hour; only fifty-two Members voted for it, but it drew from Asquith a promise to state on the following Tuesday his Government's intentions respecting Votes for Women. In the throes of the constitutional crisis, with the struggle of Nationalist Ireland versus Ulster driving the country towards civil war, Votes for Women was in the forefront of the stage: a triumph indeed for the militants. Outside in the Square were scenes of unexampled violence. I had promised to report the affair for Votes for Women, and I was obliged to avoid arrest as I was writing a history of the militant movement under contract with the publishers.

With Annie Kenney I took a taxi and drove about, the driver nothing loath to make his way into the throng. Finding it unbearable thus to watch other women knocked about, with a violence more than common even on such occasions, we jumped out of the taxi, but soon returned to it, for policemen in uniform and plain clothes struck us in the chest, seized us by the arms and flung us to the ground. This was the common experience. I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling round her. Two girls with linked arms were being dragged about by two uniformed policemen. One of a group of officers in plain clothes ran up and kicked one of the girls, whilst the others laughed and jeered at her.

Churchill and Lloyd George had radically different attitudes towards women and these coloured their approach to demands for suffrage. Churchill's may be characterised as Victorian: perhaps because of his parents' unconventional private lives, he reacted by becoming, if not prudish, at least reserved with young women. He showed a healthy romantic interest in music-hall actresses, and later in Pamela Plowden, among other young ladies, but did not enter into a full relationship until, at the age of thirty-four, he married Clementine Hozier. Lloyd George, on the other hand, had an active sex life in Criccieth and later in London. This reflected the difference between the "natural" approach of growing up in the Welsh countryside and the artificial environment of an all-male public school and the Army.

Churchill's attitude to women was one of old-fashioned chivalry... In the eyes of the young Winston, woman was on a pedestal.

During his military service in India, Churchill commented on the parliamentary debate on women's suffrage; which he studied in the Annual Register.... "I shall unswervingly oppose this ridiculous movement (to give women the vote)... Once you give votes to the vast numbers of women who form the majority of the community, all power passes to their hands." It was a reactionary sentiment fully in accord with those of his fellow cavalry officers in the Raj.

Even a decade later, in 1906, after he had joined the Liberal Party and begun to absorb and express fairly radical opinions about reform, Churchill still responded to his constituents in Manchester (a staunchly Liberal area) on the matter: "I am not going to be hen-pecked (thus coining the word) on a question of such grave importance." And instead of dealing with the demands of the suffragettes who disrupted his political meetings, he avoided the question by saying, "We must observe courtesy and chivalry to the weaker sex."

When a reference was made at a dinner party to the action of certain suffragettes in chaining themselves to railings and swearing to stay there until they got the vote, Churchill's reply was: "I might as well chain myself to St Thomas's Hospital and say I would not move till I had had a baby."

Nevertheless, it is noticeable that after his marriage to Clementine, his view of women began to change. He became more liberal and more worldly. His colleagues in the Liberal Cabinet, however, continued to tease him that his carefully prepared speeches were often interrupted by "What about votes for women, Mr Churchill?"

Winston Churchill and Charlie (Charles Masterman) had a very curious morning over the Conciliation Bill. He (Churchill) is, in a rather tepid manner, a suffragist (his wife is very keen) and he came down to the Home Office intending to vote for the Bill. Charlie, whose sympathy with the suffragettes is rather on the wane, did not want him to, nor did Lloyd George. So Charlie began to put to him the points against Shackleton's Bill - its undemocratic nature, and especially particular points, such as that "fallen women" would have the vote but not the mother of a family, and other rhetorical points. Winston began to see the opportunity for a speech on these lines, and as he paced up and down the room, began to roll off long phrases. By the end of the morning he was convinced that he had always been hostile to the Bill and that he had already thought of all these points himself. (The result was a speech of such violence and bitterness that Lady Lytton wept in the gallery and Lord Lytton cut him in public. Charlie thinks that his mind had up till then been in favour of the suffrage but that his instinct was always against it. He snatched at Charlie's arguments against this particular Bill as a wild animal snatches at its food. At the end the instinct had completely triumphed over the mind.)

I have been making as good an examination as is in my power of the actual proposals, and shape, and character of the Conciliation Bill. The more I study the Bill the more astonished I am that such a large number of respected Members of Parliament should have found it possible to put their names to it. And, most of all, I was astonished that Liberal and Labour Members should have associated themselves with it. It is not merely an undemocratic Bill; it is worse. It is an anti-democratic Bill. It gives an entirely unfair representation to property, as against persons. I have only to turn to what we have heard quoted frequently in the Debate—namely, Mr. Booth's figures in regard to London, on which the hon. Member for Merthyr (Keir Hardie) relies so much. Out of the 180,000 women voters it is calculated that 90,000 are working women, earning their living. What about the other half? Half of these voters are persons who have not to earn their living. At any rate only half of them are workers. I say, in any case, the distinction shows quite clearly that the proportion prevailing in the new electorate is wholly disproportionate to the proportion which exists now between propertied and non-propertied classes generally throughout the country. That is not denied. Take the figures on the hon. Gentleman's own interpretation. What I want to know is how many of the poorest class would be included? Would not charwomen, widows, and others still be disfranchised by receiving Poor Law relief? How many of the propertied voters will be increased by the husband giving a £10 qualification to his wife and five or six daughters? After all we are discussing a real Bill, and we are entitled to know what it is we are asked to commit ourselves to. I want the House to consider very carefully the effect of this on plural voting. At present a man can exercise the franchise several times, but he has to do it in different constituencies. But under this Bill, as I read it, he would be able to exercise his vote once or twice or three times in the same constituency if he were a wealthy man. If he had an office and residence in the same constituency he has only one vote now, but if this Bill passed he could vote for his office himself, and he could give his wife a vote for his residence. If a man votes in respect of town and country properties, under this Bill he could give one vote as his wife's occupation qualification; one qualification to his daughter, and he could keep his own vote for a property qualification elsewhere. If he owned a house and land he could keep one vote for the land for himself, and put his wife in for the house. If he owned a house and stable, or other separate building, then under this democratic Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn he could give one vote to his wife in respect of the house, and take the other himself in respect of the stable.

The supporters of Woman Suffrage are counting the number of votes likely to be cast for their cause in the House of Commons, and so exhilarating do they find the occupation that the figures grow at every attempt to look into the future. For our part, we believe that the " pledges " said to have been given by members are in most cases so ambiguous that they have no determinable value, and the predictions of the Suffragists are consequently scarcely worth the paper they are written on. We do not mean that members have actually expressed sympathy with Woman Suffrage while intending secretly to work against it; we bring no charge of dishonesty. It is quite possible that a majority of the present House have a general sympathy with the principle, but it is quite another matter to bring that sympathy into operation. It would fade away before a Bill which did not satisfy the hundred and one scruples and reser- vations that exist side by side with a sincere enough attach- ment to the cause of Woman Suffrage. There is the widest difference in the world between accepting a principle and ac- cepting a particular Bill. Although we do not suppose that any member has been dishonest in giving assurances, we have always thought, and will say again, that a good many members have trifled with the question; they have not appreciated the fact that Woman Suffragists are perfectly sincere, and in the result they have behaved very unfairly to them. Particularly is it the duty of the Government to say exactly what their attitude towards Woman Suffrage is without casuistry or ambiguity. We ourselves are funda- mentally and unfalteringly opposed to Woman Suffrage for reasons which we need not repeat. We do not expect Suffragists to like what we say, but at least they cannot accuse us of unfairness or levity. Every member of the House of Commons, from the Prime Minister downwards, ought to make up his mind to declare his opinion in the plainest possible terms either against Woman Suffrage or in favour of it, recognizing that this is not one of those questions which can be treated as a kind of annual Parliamentary joke. It excites far too much social disquiet for that. The prospect in the present session is that Sir George Kemp, who has got the first place in the ballot for private members' Bills, will bring in a revised form of the " Conciliation " Bill as soon as private members are given a day. This may or may not happen after Easter. In its altered form the " Conciliation " Bill will omit the £10 qualification, and provide that husband and wife, though they may both have votes, may not vote in the same constituency. The whole Bill, moreover, will be open to amendment. The Suffragists hope that if they get the Bill read a second time after Easter they will be able to demand " facilities " from the Government. It is important to know in what spirit the Government would meet that demand. Mr. Asquith, as everyone will re- member, said that during the present Parliament the Suffragists ought to have the opportunity " effectively " to proceed with a Bill which is open to amendment. We do not, of course, expect him to ignore a promise, but we do expect him, also, if the occasion should arise, not to forget his responsibility to the country as Prime Minister. He believes that the results of Woman Suffrage would be deplorable. Very well, he would not be mindful of his great trust if he let his strong convictions remain without influence on the course of the debate. He can give the House the opportunity to pass the Bill if it wishes, but he should also try definitely to direct opinion in the only safe course for the country. Since the " Conciliation" Bill passed its second reading in the last Parliament by a larger majority than any Government measure enjoyed, the opinion of certain members of the Government has, fortunately, hardened a good deal against Woman Suffrage. Mr. Churchill has, to all intents and purposes, thrown it over. When he received a deputation of Suffragists at Dundee, he said that he would never vote for a Woman Suffrage Bill unless he were assured that the country was in favour of the principle of Woman Suffrage. Asked how he would discover the opinion of the country, he replied that he did not as a rule believe in a referendum or plebiscite, but that he held Woman Suffrage to be one of the few questions in which a referendum would be admissible. This means that if Mr. Churchill waits for a popular declaration in favour of Woman Suffrage he will wait for ever, for nothing is more certain than that the country dislikes the very thought of Woman Suffrage. Now Mr. Churchill has said in the House of Commons that the "Conciliation" Bill was not democratic enough for him - that he must wait for a Bill of a wider sweep. In the estimates of the number of Suffragists in the present House he is very likely reckoned therefore as belonging to the advanced school of Suffragists. This one example will show how utterly misleading the estimates are. Mr. Lloyd George has not abandoned the Suffrage cause quite so plainly as Mr. Churchill, but at the election he said that the education of the country to believe in Woman Suffrage was a necessary preliminary to passing any measure in Parliament. We think we may safely prophesy therefore that, even if the "Conciliation" Bill is re-introduced this Session, at least two powerful voices on the Front Bench must be raised against it.

We have said that the thought of Woman Suffrage is strongly disliked in the country. This is proved by the remarkable results of a canvass of women municipal electors - virtually the class to which the "Conciliation" Bill proposes to give the Parliamentary vote - conducted by the National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage. Would it not be heading for national inefficiency and disaster, would it not be madness, to give the franchise to a class which declares that it does not want it? Was ever a thing comparable to this proposed before? The figures of the canvass to which we refer are being published month by month in the Anti-Suffrage Review, the organ of the National League. According to the latest figures 18,850 of those who have been canvassed have declared themselves opposed to Woman Suffrage, and only 5,579 in favour of it, while 4,707 said that they were indifferent and 12,621 have not answered. As the Anti-Suffrage Review says, is it reasonable to suppose that of those who have not answered probably the vast majority are opposed to votes for women, for it is not to be supposed that many Woman Suffragists would fail to make known the faith that is in them. Mr. Balfour has said that his inclination towards Woman Suffrage is induced by his belief in like principle of " governing by consent," and that if it were proved that women themselves did not want to vote his opinion would be greatly modified. We trust that these figures will have their due effect upon his mind. We ought to say before passing on that the value of the figures has been challenged by Suffragists, who contend that unfair arguments were used by the canvassers. We understand that so far as possible the questions were put to the women municipal electors by postcard, in order to avoid this charge of undue influence. Let us, however, state the objection. It is admitted that a proportion of the answers were collected by personal can- vassers. The last number of the Anti-Suffrage Review contained an account of a canvass of men and women at Hawkhurst, in Kent, conducted under ideal conditions, for the Suffragists were taken into the confidence of the Anti-Suffragists, and representatives of both sides managed the canvass and audited the figures. No arguments whatever were used by either side. The result makes one think that the figures of the larger canvass published by the National League are not very misleading.