appeal of women to regain their citizenship was arrayed before the statue of the monarch in whose reign that citizenship was first called in question. The unusual aspect of affairs in this usually empty Hall drew forth a question in the House of Commons, which revealed great uncertainty as to where the authority for the use of Westminster Hall resided, and that the Committee had been under a misunderstanding when they stated that permission had been granted by the Home Secretary. As explained by Mrs. Fawcett in a letter to the Times, they had understood from the Secretary of Works that the consent of the Home Secretary was necessary; and when all the arrangements were made to enable them to place their appeal in the Hall, they assumed it was due to the consent of the Home Secretary. It now appeared that his only part in the matter was to provide police to "prevent disorder and annoyance." The letter went on: "Perhaps he [the Home Secretary] will pardon us the more readily as he himself stated in the House on Tuesday that it was an unsettled question who has control over Westminster Hall. As we must not thank him for permission to use the Hall, we must content ourselves by thanking him for the services of the police, who prevented disorder and annoyance by lending us chairs and by showing us every kindness and courtesy."

At the Annual Meeting that year the Lady Frances Balfour was elected President of the Central Committee. In October a conference was held in Birmingham, to which delegates from all societies working for Women's Suffrage were invited, with intent to draw

all into closer relations. The societies which made Women's Suffrage their sole object on a non-party basis, coalesced as a National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, each with a definite area in which to work.

The death of Isabella M. S. Tod in December of that year made another wide gap in the ranks of the early workers. Her health had long been precarious, and more than once severe illnesses had attacked her during the visits she annually paid to London during the session, in order to watch the interests of Irish women in Parliament; but her energetic spirit had surmounted many attacks. The place she filled in the political work of Ireland was unique. It was of her own creation, by dint of her incessant watchfulness for the good of Ireland, and of the women of Ireland especially.

§ 46. The Second Reading of 1897.

The session of 1897 opened with the most successful event yet recorded in these annals. Mr. Faithfull Begg was again the successful member at the ballot, and drew an early number, setting the Bill down for February 3rd, when it passed second reading by a majority of seventy-one.

When a second reading passed in 1886 the circumstances had been very different-the division had not been directly on the Bill, but on the question of adjournment. On the present occasion it was a direct vote on the Bill itself, as the opponents knew full well, for they were much on the alert and sent round an adverse whip signed by ten members taken equally from both

sides of the House. Such a division was an unmistakable indication that the steady growth of interest in the question in the country made itself felt in Parliament. The old opponents who were re-elected at the General Election of 1895 mustered in force on February 3rd; but they were exceeded in number by the old friends. Several new M.P.'s voted against, but a greater number voted in favour; moreover, this division did not show the whole strength of the movement, for 109 members, who were understood to be friendly, were absent. Those who voted formed a majority in each party in the House.

The debate itself was chiefly noticeable from the extraordinary levity with which the subject was treated by the mover and seconder of the rejection of the Bill, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke and Mr. Labouchere. The Bill was introduced by Mr. Faithfull Begg, in a speech giving sound and solid facts, and was ably seconded by Mr. Atherley Jones. Mr. Radcliffe Cooke tried to reduce it to the level of a pounds, shillings and pence calculation, pretending to measure the numbers interested by the numbers of subscribers to the different Committees whose reports he had examined, and to test their strength by their balance sheets. For Mr. Radcliffe Cooke balance sheets may be all in all, but those who work for this cause know they show but a small portion indeed of what is done by the many earnest women whose labour, without money and without price, is the mainstay; while the organized expenditure is but the wrappage, so to say, that gathers the volunteer work together in a coherent whole. Mr. Labouchere's efforts to make out that votes in

favour were but given in joke, and that the House regarded the whole thing as a huge joke, was sufficiently refuted by the strong phalanx of votes from steadfast friends. The Bill was set down for Committee on June 23rd, and signs of work appeared in many directions. The Women's Liberal Unionist Association at their annual meeting passed a resolution asking the Government to reserve a day for the Bill; the Women's Liberal Federation included Women's Suffrage in the subjects submitted to their associations; the Women's Cooperative Guild, with a membership of 10,000 of the most capable and thoughtful of the working women of the country, discussed the subject at the general conferences of each of the five sections into which the Guild is divided and at each conference a resolution was passed, declaring the conference in favour of the principle of Women's Suffrage, and recording its satisfaction that the Bill passed second reading with so large a majority.

Petitions came in larger numbers than for any other public questions, and over 100 meetings were held, of which about one-third were drawing-room meetings, onethird public meetings, and the rest in connection with various Women's Liberal Associations and British Women's Temperance Associations.

So the work rolled on-alas! not in every case wisely. A petition, calling on the House of Commons to reform its procedure, sent up from a small meeting wholly independent of the National organization of Women's Suffrage Societies, brought many remonstrances from members of Parliament down on the Secretaries of these Societies. Nor was this the only way from

which the work suffered. To the surprise of all the leaders of the work in the House and out of it, it was found that on March 8th Lord Templetown had introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, and no representations availed to induce him to recede from the position which he had taken at the instance of the same coterie to which reference has been made already in the case of Mr. Macdona's Bill. The result of this unfortunate action on the part of a friendly Peer may be given in the words of Mrs. Hallett's speech at the Annual Meeting of the Bristol and West of England Society on March 27th: "Contrary to the earnestly expressed wish of the Suffrage Societies, Lord Templetown introduced a Bill in the Lords, and many people thought it was the same Bill which is waiting for the Committee stage in the Commons. But this was not the case. Unfortunately, Lord Salisbury was at Windsor when Lord Templetown's Bill was introduced, and he asked the Duke of Devonshire to give the House the advice which he (Lord Salisbury) would have given, if present. The advice was not to deal with the question until the Bill had in due course been sent up from the Commons. The Duke stated that the Government had decided to leave the question an open one, but he also took upon himself, contrary to ordinary etiquette, to administer a rebuke to the Lower House. He said he 'regretted the levity with which the proposal was sanctioned' by the Commons, and 'his opinion of the reputation of the Commons for sobriety of judgment had not been enhanced.' As everybody knows the levity was on the side of the opponents, while the