Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 6.djvu/763

 747 in support of the amendment. These produced a good effect and on November 20, Government opposition having been with- drawn, the amendment was agreed to without a division. Thus without the existence of a single woman voter but on the strength of her coming into existence within the next few months, the women on the Municipal registers of Great Britain and Ire- land were increased in number from about one million to over eight-and-a-half millions. And yet Lord Bryce and the other anti-suffragists assured us that the vote would make no difference ! In the House of Commons a third reading of the Representa- tion of the People Bill was taken on December 7 without a division. The Bill was now safely through the Commons but its passage through the Lords had yet to be undertaken. The second reading debate began on December 17 and lasted two days. No one could predict what would happen ; Lord Curzon, president of the Anti-Suffrage League, was leader of the House and chief representative of the Government. The Lord Chancellor [Lord Finlay], who is in the chair in House of Lords' debates, was an envenomed opponent. Among other influential Peers whom we knew as our enemies were Lord Lansdowne, Lord Halsbury, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Bryce. On the other hand we could count on the support of Lord Selborne, Lord Lytton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, Lord Courtney and Lord Milner. We looked forward to the debate and the divisions in the Lords with considerable trepidation. The Lords have no constituents, they have no seats to fight for and defend. It is therefore impossible to influence them by any electioneering arts but we sent to all the Peers a carefully worded and influen- tially signed memorandum setting forth the chief facts and argu- ments in our favour. The second reading of the Bill was taken in the Lords without a division, the most important speecb against it being Lord Bryce's ; he insisted attain and aijain that the possession of a vole made no dill Lord Sydenham had tin- courage (!) to assert that the suffrage movement bad made no in America, and, while admitting that it had lately been adopted in the State of New York, no doubt thought that be was giving a fair description when be said: "In America . . . four- teen States have refused the franchise to women and two, Mon-