State Government House, Melbourne.—Has received his letter of 1 April. Asks who Geoffrey is marrying. Is surprised, in view of the ‘ministerial reconstruction’, that Montagu made light of the rumours of a coalition Government. It is speculated locally that the reorganisation resulted from disputes between Winston and Fisher or a desire to involve both parties in the unpopular move of introducing compulsory service. A joint Cabinet will perhaps have more authority and be less subject to partisan criticism. The reconstruction of the Admiralty is an advantage. Sympathises with Montagu’s loss of the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, but thinks he will not regret returning to the Treasury and the Patronage secretaryship. An Act of Parliament may be needed to approve the creation of Lloyd George’s new Ministry. Is surprised that McKenna was appointed [as Chancellor of the Exchequer] rather than Austen or Bonar Law. Does not believe that he himself will be affected by the reconstruction of the Colonial Office. Is sorry for Blue Tooth. The action taken as a result of the temperance agitation was inadequate; he supposes the new Government may do something more drastic. Refers to the proposed reduction of licensing hours in Australia, and notes that the Union of Governors and Governor-Generals have decided to become teetotallers. He himself has found this easy, but M[unro]-F[erguson] has not. He finds M-F a bore, but gets on better with him than he probably would have done with Denman. The Liberal Party in the Federal Parliament are blaming Cook for having asked for the double dissolution, which is unfair, since, though it turned out badly, they had all supported it at the time. If he had been in M-F’s place he would have refused the request, though this would admittedly have laid him open to abuse from the Liberals, and he may be ignorant of some of the circumstances. Asks Montagu to write again.
11 Avenue de la Grande Armée, Paris.—The Lords debate on Lord Selborne's Bill has demonstrated the link between the militant women’s movement and militant Ulster. Deplores the continuing persecution of women and the Government’s attempts to silence prominent suffragettes.
—————
Transcript
11 avenue de la Grande Armée | Paris.
7th May 1914
My dearest Con,
The really important thing in the Lords Debate is the recognition that the WSPU & Carson & Bonar Law—Militant Ulster in fact—stand in the same boat!
That was the one thing for good that really counted in a practical sense.
On the other hand there is the Liberal cry that one knew would be raised tht “the rejection of Lord Selborne’s Bill by the House of Lords illustrates the profound anti-feminism of the Unionist Party”. {1} See leading article from “Daily Chronicle” enclosed.
It seems to me tht the matter having been brought to the present point, it cannot rest there. What next do Suffragists in the House of Lords intend to do! The Archbishop of Canterbury, {2} the Bishop of London & Lord Lytton could get us the vote now if they cared to do it. But of course Lord Lytton does not agree with the Bishop of London about Ulster & ourselves.
How can they as suffragists—as men—allow the coercion & persecution of women to go on while concession is being made to Ulster men whose militancy means bloodshed & the death of hundreds if not thousands of human beings.
Have you heard that Mrs Drummond and Mrs Dacre Fox have both been summoned to appear at Bow St on account of “inciting” speeches?
This means illness & suffering—sheer torture for both of them. And there are Carson & Bonar Law & all the rest, free & unharmed!
Mrs Dacre Fox is expected at Bow Street on 14th May—a Thursday. The General threw her summons away & so we don’t know the date named in it.
The Government are trying to silence our powerful speakers. They will probably arrest several organisers—But there are always people ready to step into the breach; {3} surely the last two Raids have taught them that.
We laugh at their Raids except for the pain & danger they mean to the ones taken.
Let us hold fast to tht admission tht women’s militancy & Ulster militancy are in their truth & essence one & the same & shd be dealt with in the same way! What are these men going to do!
Thank goodness we can win without them anyhow—by the sheer fact of being able to create an intolerable situation! Women winning their own freedom. Glorious thought!
My very best love to you.
Christabel Pankhurst
——————
The word ‘that’ is abbreviated a few times as ‘tht’.
{1} Full stop supplied.
{2} Comma supplied.
{3} Semi-colon supplied.
Fisher’s Hill, Woking, Surrey.—Responds to comments on women’s suffrage by Bonar Law and others, and reports on her meeting with Maud Selborne.
(In an unidentified hand.)
—————
Transcript
Bets to Mother
Copy| Extracts
Fishers Hill: Woking: Surrey. Sat Jan. 27. 1912.
… I am bitterly disappointed in Bonar Law as reported in the Times—but Gerald says he is sure he said Womanhood suffrage which would have been better {1}. I have not looked in the Standard yet. Times sentence on Belfast seems to be ludicrously inconsistent with their anti-militant attitude, but Gerald wont see it. I thought the “Votes” article on Catholic Emancipation most striking as a parallel. Do read it.
Maude† (Selborne) was quite charming to me. She is working Suffrage very hard locally & she too is on her Hampshire Education Committee—we talked that too. About Referendum she agrees with me that Grey did not mean what he is supposed to have to have meant. It was only in answer to a question—& he meant “Oh! If the H. of Commons press for a Referendum, that is a new question”—just as he might say “If the H. of Commons cease to want W.S. the situation is changed.” But G. saw in the paper yesterday that Lloyd George too is coming round to the Referendum. This in the face of his former strong statements! I cant yet believe it.
Maud says we shant get one {2} Conservative to vote against Referendum, because they are keen to get it tried, realising that the machinery once established it cant be refused for other questions. But she believes if it were to be put in the form “Are you in favour of women who pay rates & taxes having the vote?” we should win.
She told me of a row she has been having with Pole Carew (Gen[era]l Sir Reginald) on Suffrage. She really is a splendid worker on her own lines—& she says Lady Willoughby (De Broke) is first rate.
—————
{1} The reference is to Bonar Law’s address to a large political meeting at the Albert Hall the night before, as reported in the The Times. The relevant passage is as follows: ‘The first item on their [the Government’s] programme is manhood suffrage, which I venture to say was not mentioned before the election by any single member of the Government. And it is not manhood suffrage only. It may be woman suffrage as well. The Prime Minister has told us that woman suffrage would be a disaster, and in the same breath he says that he is ready to be the instrument for perpetrating that disaster. Has ever British statesmanship fallen so low?’ (The Times, 27 Jan. 1912, p. 10.)
{2} Reading uncertain.
Pembroke Lodge, Edwardes Square, Kensington, W.—Thanks her for her note. His chief interest in the question (presumably women’s suffrage) is to get the greatest advantage from it against the Government.
(Transcript in an unidentified hand.)
Turf Club, Cairo. "Studies" the Anglo-Egyptians at the Turf Club, Winston Churchill "waltzed" around Lloyd George and Bonar Law in the House of Commons, pleased that America had joined the allies,