ENGLISH POLITICAL HISTORY S o 3 



threatened, in spite of the support given by the Liberal government at home and the 

 British Ambassador at Washington. Every platform rang with Unionist rejoicings, 

 and the Canadian victory put new heart into the Tariff Reform propaganda. 



On yet another question of Imperial moment a rebuff was given to the Ministerial 

 policy. Throughout 1911 the decision of the Government to ratify the Declaration of 

 London had led to a prolonged agitation. Most of the Unionist party, 

 together with a strong body of naval opinion, were actively opposed to it, 

 their argument being that under its provisions the advantages of British 

 supremacy at sea in war time would be seriously diminished. The Government suc- 

 ceeded however (June i, 1911) in obtaining the support of the Imperial Conference, 

 considerable weight attaching to Sir E. Grey's view that adhesion to the Declaration 

 would be advantageous in Great Britain's foreign relations and to the cause of peace. 

 As Parliament had no direct control over the action of the Government in the matter of 

 ratification, political opposition centered on the Naval Prize Bill which was introduced 

 to carry out the provisions of the Declaration of London, the second reading being 

 taken on July 3d. So much headway was made in arousing antagonism to the Declara- 

 tion itself that when the third reading of the Naval Prize Bill came on in the House of 

 Commons on December 7th the Government only managed to get a majority of 47; and 

 the House of Lords promptly rejected the Bill. 



The Government were meanwhile being perpetually worn and worried by the 

 militant agitation for Women's Suffrage and by the difficulty of dealing with any legisla- 

 The Ftaa- tion on the subject when the Cabinet was divided. The Prime Minister 

 chise <jues- himself was avowedly opposed to Women's Suffrage altogether, and 

 tloa ' among other Ministers Lord Loreburn and Mr. Lewis Harcourt shared his 



views. On the other hand, Mr. Lloyd George, while professing himself a strong sup- 

 porter of the cause, which was also advocated by Sir. E. Grey and Lord Haldane, 

 objected to any Bill which was not thoroughly " democratic;" and because the " mili- 

 tants " regarded his attitude as obstructing the particular measure which they had in 

 view and held him responsible for a Government Bill not being introduced as they 

 desired, he was pestered as much as if he had actually been an open opponent like Mr. 

 Asquith. The so-called " Conciliation " Bill, introduced by Sir G. Kemp, which 

 assimilated the parliamentary to the municipal franchise for women and would give 

 votes to about a million, had been read a second time in the House of Commons on 

 May 5, 1911, Mr. Asquith himself pairing against it while Mr. Lloyd George and other 

 Ministers supported it; and as there was no time for proceeding with the Bill in 1911 

 the Government promised to give it " facilities " in the following year. But while 

 the various sections of supporters of Women's Suffrage disputed about its prospects, and 

 the " militants " raged together, Mr. Asquith suddenly gave a new turn on November 

 7th by announcing the intention of the Government to add to its programme a Franchise 

 Reform Bill on the lines of Manhood Suffrage. In answer to a deputation of Woman 

 Suffragists on November i7th he declared that, while he was personally opposed to 

 Women's Suffrage altogether, this Bill would be so drawn as to admit of amendment to 

 include women on certain terms; and if an amendment, which the Government as 

 such would not oppose, were carried, the Government would then adopt it. They 

 would also, as had been promised, give facilities for the Conciliation Bill. 



It had been generally supposed that the Government would take advantage of the 

 passing of the Parliament Act to reintroduce the Bill against Plural Voting which the 

 Lords had rejected in 1906, but this larger measure was totally unexpected, and the 

 announcement was widely construed simply as a device for " dishing " Women's 

 Suffrage. It was at once denounced for that reason by the " militants," who began to 

 make more trouble than ever. Their proceedings are chronicled elsewhere. So far 

 as Parliament is concerned it is sufficient here to note that from this moment the internal 

 divisions within the Cabinet on the subject of Women's Suffrage, and the necessity of 

 taking administrative action against " militant " violence, remained a source of constant 

 difficulty. When eventually, on March 28, 1912, the Conciliation Bill was rejected 



