(eBook PDF) Economics and the Environment 7th

Edition download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-economics-and-the-
environment-7th-edition/

Download full version ebook from https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Economics and the Environment, 8th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-economics-and-the-
environment-8th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Geology and the Environment 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-geology-and-the-
environment-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Economics and the Environment: A Signalling

and Incentives Approach, 2nd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-economics-and-the-
environment-a-signalling-and-incentives-approach-2nd-edition/

(Original PDF) Business Law and the Legal Environment,

Standard Edition 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-business-law-and-the-
legal-environment-standard-edition-7th-edition/
(eBook PDF) Business and Its Environment 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-and-its-
environment-7th-edition/

(Original PDF) The Economics of Women, Men and Work 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-the-economics-of-
women-men-and-work-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Environment: The Science Behind the Stories

7th Edition by Jay H. Withgott

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-environment-the-science-
behind-the-stories-7th-edition-by-jay-h-withgott/

(eBook PDF) The Economics of Money, Banking and

Financial Markets, 7th Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-economics-of-money-
banking-and-financial-markets-7th-canadian-edition/

(eBook PDF) Health Economics and Policy 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-health-economics-and-
policy-7th-edition/
vi CONTENTS

Chapter 4 The Efficiency Standard 48

4.0 Introduction 48
4.1 Efficiency Defined 48
4.2 Efficient Pollution Levels 51
4.3 Marginals and Totals 55
4.4 The Coase Theorem Introduced 57
4.5 Air Pollution Control in Baltimore: Calculating the
Efficient Standard 58
4.6 The Ethical Basis of the Efficiency Standard 59
4.7 Real-World Benefit-Cost 60
4.8 Summary 64
Chapter 5 Measuring the Benefits of Environmental Protection 74
5.0 Introduction 74
5.1 Use, Option, and Existence Value: Types of Nonmarket
Benefits 75
5.2 Consumer Surplus, WTP, and WTA: Measuring Benefits 76
5.3 Risk: Assessment and Perception 79
5.4 Measuring Benefits I: Contingent Valuation 82
5.5 Measuring Benefits II: Travel Cost 86
5.6 Measuring Benefits III: Hedonic Regression 87
5.7 The Value of Human Life 88
5.8 Summary 91
Appendix 5A: WTA and WTP Redux 97
5A.1: An Indifference Curve Analysis 97
5A.2: Prospect Theory or Substitutability? 99
Chapter 6 Measuring the Costs of Environmental Protection 101
6.0 Introduction 101
6.1 Engineering Costs 102
6.2 Productivity Impacts of Regulation 104
6.3 Employment Impacts of Regulation 107
6.4 General Equilibrium Effects and the Double Dividend 113
6.5 A Final Look at Benefit-Cost Analysis 114
6.6 Summary 117
Chapter 7 The Safety Standard 124
7.0 Introduction 124
7.1 Defining the Right to Safety 125
7.2 The Safety Standard: Inefficient 127
7.3 The Safety Standard: Not Cost-Effective 129
7.4 The Safety Standard: Regressive? 130
 CONTENTS vii

7.5 Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Safety versus Efficiency 133

7.6 Summary 136
Chapter 8 The Sustainability Standard 141
8.0 Introduction 141
8.1 Sustainability: Neoclassical and Ecological Approaches 142
8.2 Future Benefits, Costs, and Discounting 146
8.3 An Example of Discounting: Lightbulbs 148
8.4 Savings, Investment, and Market Interest Rates 150
8.5 The Social Discount Rate and Dynamic Efficiency 151
8.6 Discounting Climate Change 154
8.7 Ecological Economics, Strong Sustainability, and the Precautionary
Principle 155
8.8 Strong Sustainability in Practice: Endangered Species, EIS,
and Reach 157
8.9 Summary 159
Chapter 9 Measuring Sustainability 166
9.0 Introduction 166
9.1 Malthus and Ecological Economics 167
9.2 Modern Debates: Limits to Growth and Planetary
Boundaries 170
9.3 Measuring Strong Sustainability: Impacts and Footprints 173
9.4 Measuring Weak Sustainability: Net National Welfare and Inclusive
Wealth 177
9.5 Natural Capital Depreciation 182
9.6 Are We Achieving Sustainability? 185
9.7 Discounting, Sustainability, and Investing for the Future 190
9.8 The Ecological-Neoclassical Debate in Context 192
9.9 Summary 193
Chapter 10 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services 201
10.0 Introduction 201
10.1 Nonrenewable Resources and the Hotelling Model 203
10.2 Testing the Nonrenewable Resource Model 209
10.3 ‘‘Peak Oil’’ 210
10.4 Renewable Resources 214
10.5 Renewable Resource Policy: Fisheries and Endangered
Species 220
10.6 Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital 224
10.7 Summary 227
Chapter 11 Is More Really Better? Consumption and Welfare 235
11.0 Introduction 235
11.1 Money and Happiness 236
viii CONTENTS

11.2 Social Norms and the Rat Race 237

11.3 Positional Goods and Consumption Externalities 241
11.4 Welfare with Social Consumption 243
11.5 Controlling the Impact of Consumption 245
11.6 Summary 248

PART II: IS GOVERNMENT UP TO THE JOB? 253

Chapter 12 The Political Economy of Environmental Regulation 255

12.0 Introduction 255
12.1 The Process of Environmental Regulation 256
12.2 Regulation under Imperfect Information 258
12.3 Bureaucratic Discretion and Political Influence 260
12.4 Who Wins the Influence Game? 262
12.5 Political Reform of Regulation 265
12.6 Better Information, More Democracy 267
12.7 Summary 269
Chapter 13 An Overview of Environmental Legislation 274
13.0 Introduction 274
13.1 Cleaning the Air 275
13.2 Fishable and Swimmable Waters 280
13.3 Hazardous Waste Disposal on Land 282
13.4 Chemicals and Pesticides 285
13.5 Endangered Species Protection 288
13.6 Summary 290
Chapter 14 The Regulatory Record: Achievements and Obstacles 294
14.0 Introduction 294
14.1 Accomplishments of Environmental Regulation 295
14.2 Monitoring and Enforcement: Political Constraints 299
14.3 The Appeal of Incentive-Based Regulation 302
14.4 Beyond Regulation? Promoting Clean Technology 304
14.5 Summary 307

PART III: HOW CAN WE DO BETTER? 312

Chapter 15 Incentive-Based Regulation: Theory 313

15.0 Introduction 313
15.1 The Cost-Effectiveness Rule 314
15.2 IB Regulation and Cost-Effectiveness 318
15.3 IB Regulation and Technological Progress 321
 CONTENTS ix

15.4 Potential Problems with IB Regulation 323

15.5 Summary 330
Appendix 15A: Imperfect Regulation in an Uncertain
World 334
15A.0: Minimizing the Costs of Being Wrong 334
15A.1: An Application to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 337
15A.2: Summary 339
Appendix 15B: Incentive-Compatible Regulation 340
15B.0: Incentives to Lie 340
15B.1: Incentives to Tell the Truth 342
15B.2: Summary 344
Chapter 16 Incentive-Based Regulation: Practice 346
16.0 Introduction 346
16.1 Lead and Chlorofluorocarbons 347
16.2 Trading Urban Air Pollutants 348
16.3 Marketable Permits and Acid Rain 352
16.4 Carbon Trading in the Northeast and California 356
16.5 Two Failed U.S. Efforts: Mercury and Carbon 359
16.6 The European Emissions Trading System 362
16.7 Pollution Taxes and Their Relatives 364
16.8 Summary 368
Chapter 17 Promoting Clean Technology: Theory 374
17.0 Introduction 374
17.1 Path Dependence and Clean Technology 375
17.2 Clean Technology Defined 377
17.3 If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? 380
17.4 Picking the Winning Path 384
17.5 Promoting Early-Stage Clean Technologies 385
17.6 Promoting Late-Stage Clean Technologies 388
17.7 Clean Technology: Two Case Studies 392
17.8 Summary 397
Chapter 18 Energy Policy and the Future 403
18.0 Introduction 403
18.1 Technology Options: Electricity and Heat 404
18.2 Policy Options: Electricity and Heat 411
18.3 Technology Options: Transport 417
18.4 Policy Options: Transport 422
18.5 Slowing Global Warming at a Profit? 426
18.6 Summary 428
x CONTENTS

PART IV: HOW CAN WE SOLVE GLOBAL CHALLENGES? 433

Chapter 19 Poverty, Population, and the Environment 435

19.0 Introduction 435
19.1 Poverty and the Environment 437
19.2 The Population Picture in Perspective 441
19.3 An Economic Approach to Family Size 443
19.4 Controlling Population Growth 445
19.5 Consumption and the Global Environment 450
19.6 Envisioning a Sustainable Future 453
19.7 Summary 456
Chapter 20 Environmental Policy in Poor Countries 460
20.0 Introduction 460
20.1 The Political Economy of Sustainable Development 461
20.2 Ending Environmentally Damaging Subsidies 463
20.3 Establishing and Enforcing Property Rights 465
20.4 Regulatory Approaches 468
20.5 Sustainable Technology: Development and Transfer 473
20.6 Resource Conservation and Debt Relief 476
20.7 Trade and the Environment 481
20.8 Summary 486
Chapter 21 The Economics of Global Agreements 492
21.0 Introduction 492
21.1 Agreements as Public Goods 493
21.2 Monitoring and Enforcement 494
21.3 The Ozone Layer and Biodiversity 496
21.4 Stopping Global Warming: Theory 501
21.5 Stopping Global Warming: Reality 505
21.6 Summary 507
Selected Web Sites 512
Author Index 515
Subject Index 519
PREFACE

This seventh edition of Economics and the Environment welcomes Dr. Stephen Polasky
as a co-author, who brings to the text a reworked and stronger focus on natural resource
economics and ecosystem services. This book was first published in 1992, as the Rio
Earth Summit was concluding. Global warming had been brought to national and global
attention only four years prior by James Hansen’s famous congressional testimony.
The first President Bush would soon sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change. At the time, CO2 in the atmosphere stood at 356 parts per million.
Twenty one years later, CO2 levels are at 400 parts per million and climbing.
Climate change remains front and center, now understood less as an environmental
problem than as a challenge to civilization. As in the first edition, global warming
remains the topic that launches the book, and provides the framing example for a
comprehensive look at environmental economics. With Steve’s help, the book now
provides a stronger resource and ecosystem processes lens for exploring climate change
and other critical environmental issues.
The book retains the three interrelated advantages of its earlier incarnations: broad
content; pedagogical clarity; and timely, well integrated examples. There are a few
significant additions to content, several new end-of-chapter problems and exercises,
and updated examples and information throughout.
A complete set of ancillary materials is available for adopters of Economics and
the Environment. These resources can be found on the book’s companion site at:
www.wiley.com/college/goodstein.
● An Instructor’s Manual containing suggestions for teaching from this book,
sample exams, and chapter practice questions.
● PowerPoint Presentations for course lectures. In addition, electronic files for
all the figures in the text are available in an Image Gallery.
Major changes to this edition include:

● The formerly separate chapters on Neoclassical and Ecological Economics

have been reworked into two new chapters: The Sustainability Standard
(Chapter 8) and Measuring Sustainability (Chapter 9). The discussion of the
xi
xii PREFACE

two perspectives is recentered around weak and strong sustainability. And in

this edition, chapters on Measuring the Benefits of Environmental Protection
(Chapter 6) and Measuring the Costs of Environmental Protection (Chapter 7)
now precede the sustainability discussion.
● An all new chapter on Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services (Chapter 10)
covers optimal non-renewable resource extraction; predictions about price
paths; optimal renewable harvesting strategies; and the new economics
involved in estimating the value of jointly produced ecosystem services.
● The discounting discussion has been reframed around the Ramsey equation,
and it is made clear that discounting at a positive rate only makes sense if weak
sustainability is assumed.
● The former chapter on benefit-cost analysis has been shortened and now
appears as the concluding section to the chapter on the efficiency standard
(Chapter 4).
● The former chapter on enforcement has also been shortened, and the material
is included in the chapter covering the accomplishments and challenges of
regulation (Chapter 14).
● Updated and in-depth discussions of California’s new CO2 emission trading
and the EU ETS are provided.
● The Obama Administration’s far-reaching impact on regulation and enforce-
ment is discussed.
In terms of content, the book provides a rigorous and comprehensive presentation
of the “standard analysis,” including the property-rights basis of environmental prob-
lems, efficient pollution control, benefit-estimation procedures, and incentive-based
regulation. However, Economics and the Environment also incorporates broader topics
as separate chapters, notably, the ethical foundations of environmental economics, a
focus on ecological economics and strong sustainability, a safety-based approach to
controlling pollution, the ecological economic critique of economic growth, the poten-
tial for government failure, the promotion of “clean technology,” and opportunities
for sustainable development in poor countries.
The second major advantage of the book is pedagogical clarity. In contrast to other
texts that work from a “topics” perspective—water, oil, forests, fish—Economics and
the Environment is centered around four clearly focused questions:
1. How much pollution (or resource degradation) is too much?
2. Is government up to the job?
3. How can we do better?
4. How can we resolve global issues?
These questions are all introduced through a detailed case study of the “big” issue
of the century—global warming. The first section of Economics and the Environment
then proceeds to explore the explicitly normative question, “How much pollution is
too much?” The tools of welfare economics and benefit–cost analysis are used to
explore three possible answers. The first is the efficient pollution level. Here students
are introduced to the fundamentals of benefit and cost estimation, and benefit-cost
analysis. The second pollution standard is a safety standard, including questions of
 PREFACE xiii

environmental justice, which in fact continue to drive much environmental policy. The
advantages and drawbacks of safety as a goal are analyzed. Efficiency and safety are
also contrasted in the context of the economic growth debate; students particularly
enjoy Chapter 11, ‘Is More Really Better?’
The third standard is sustainability, defined as an intergenerational equity con-
straint. In two new chapters, we explore weak (Neoclassical) and strong (Ecological)
sustainability, and in the process consider natural capital measurement techniques,
the logic of discounting, the importance of investing resource rents productively,
substitution possibilities between manufactured and natural capital, the precautionary
principle, and questions of long-run resource scarcity. Also new to the text this edition is
a separate chapter focusing on “Resource Economics” (renewable and non-renewable
resource management), the Peak Oil debate, and recent attempts by economists to
model and value ecosystem services through ecological production functions.
Tying together this first, normative section of the book is a vital discussion that
is missing from other texts: the utilitarian ethical basis for the normative analysis and
its relation to an “environmental ethic.” Many students come into an environmental
economics course thinking that saving polar bears is important, without knowing
exactly why they think so. The explicit welfare-based analysis in chapter 2 asks students
to confront the assumptions underlying their own and others’ worldviews.
The text fills a second major void through the second big question, “Is Government
Up to the Job?” (Section 3) Most existing texts simply note that “government failure”
is a potential problem when correcting for market externalities. In Economics and the
Environment, the question of government’s ability to effectively regulate pollution
is carefully examined. The section begins with a discussion of the two primary
obstacles to effective government action: imperfect information and the opportunity
for political influence over government policy. It then provides a succinct review of
existing legislation and accomplishments on air, water, solid and hazardous waste, toxic
pollution, and endangered species. Part II ends with a discussion of the often neglected
subject of monitoring and enforcement.
The third section of the book, “How Can We Do Better?” tackles the more positive
aspects of pollution regulation. Two chapters are devoted to the theory and practical
application of incentive-based regulation—marketable permits and Pigovian taxes.
Real world analysis focuses on the technical challenges faced by permit systems (price
volatility, hot spots) and the political obstacles to taxes. Appendices explore instrument
choice under uncertainty, and incentive-compatible regulation. From here, the book
examines an argument that attributes the root source of pollution to market failure in
technological development rather than in the arena of property rights. We consider
the view that the market often fails to generate incentives for investment in clean
technology, as well as the feasibility of proposed solutions to this problem. In-depth
discussion focuses on areas such as energy policy, pollution prevention, alternative
agriculture, recycling, life-cycle analysis, and “green” labeling.
The final question that Economics and the Environment explores is: “How Can
We Solve Global Issues?” Part IV focuses on global pollution and resource issues,
and is centered around a definition and discussion of sustainable development. Topics
covered include the preservation of natural capital; the economics of population control;
rising per-capita consumption pressures; the relationship between poverty, sustainable
xiv PREFACE

development, and environmental protection in poor countries; international trade and

the environment; and global pollution control agreements.
In sum, Economics and the Environment appeals to three groups of instructors.
The first are economists who are simply looking for a clear and concise presentation
of environmental and resource economics. The four-question format developed in
the text provides a simpler and more useful pedagogical handle than is available in
the “topics” approach followed by other authors. In addition, the book provides a
wealth of examples as well as an explicit consideration of the government’s role in
environmental policy not available in competing works. Finally, the appendices cover
advanced theoretical topics, ensuring that there is enough in-depth material to fill out
a one-semester course.
The book will appeal also to those with an interest in expanding the scope
of environmental and resource economics. Economics and the Environment moves
beyond the standard analysis in five important areas. It provides a rigorous normative
analysis of environmental goals; an in-depth evaluation of ecological economics and
strong sustainability; serious attention to the potential for government failure in
pollution control; substantial discussion of dynamic issues of path dependence and
technological change; and a sophisticated presentation of sustainable development in
poor countries. The book seeks to incorporate into a well-developed economic analysis
ideas that have emerged in the environmental and ecological sciences over the past
few decades.
Given this orientation, instructors in environmental studies courses will also find
this text to be unusually user friendly. Chapters on measuring the value of nonmarket
goods, cost-benefit analysis, markets for pollution rights, incentives for investment in
appropriate technology, the governmental role in pollution control, population and
consumption pressures, global bargaining, and conservation in poor countries provide
accessible material for environmental studies courses with a social-science focus.
Ultimately, the test of any textbook comes in the classroom. Economics and the
Environment was written for students. It addresses important questions raised in their
lives and introduces them to the economist’s view of some solutions.
A synthetic work such as this depends on the contributions of the hundreds of
economists and environmental scholars working in the field. Some of their names
appear in the list of authors cited at the end of this book; many important contributors
were omitted because of the scarce resource of space. In addition, over the last
twenty years, dozens of colleagues and anonymous reviewers have provided important
comments and feedback. Many of their suggestions have found their way into the
final version of this book. We are grateful to all who have contributed, and made
this a more useful text. Final thanks to our editors Courtney Luzzi, Joel Hollenbeck,
Production Editor Yee Lyn Song at John Wiley & Sons and Project Manager Lavanya
Murlidhar at Laserwords Pvt Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
 1
C H A P T E R

FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

1.0 Introduction
One of us recently had some surprise visitors to his environmental and natural resource
economics class. It was alumni week at the college, and four members of the class of
1950, back for their 60th reunion, joined our discussion. We were talking about sustain-
ability, and suddenly the day’s lecture became very real. How has life really changed
since these visitors left college in 1950? Have six decades of intervening economic
growth—with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) more than tripling—made life
better? Or have the costs of growth made things worse? Is economic growth sustainable?
And over the coming decades, will your generation’s quality of life rise or fall?
So imagine now: You are that older woman or man, heading to the classroom
this week for your 60th class reunion. You are 80-something, and for you, it will be
sometime in the 2070s. As you listen to the young professor at the head of the class
talking about the latest theories, you sit back and reflect on the changes that you have
witnessed in your lifetime. Maybe your story will go something like this:
Over the 21st century, you lived through both deep recessions and economic
booms, through wars and political upheavals. You experienced staggering
technological breakthroughs, unprecedented droughts, sea-level rise that
forced tens of millions from their homes, large-scale extinctions, and the
outbreak of new diseases. Against this background, you and your classmates
from around the world maintained a relentless focus: redesigning every city
on earth, reengineering production processes, reimagining the global food
system, reinventing transportation.
World population grew from 6 to 8 to, eventually, 10 billion people,
before it finally stabilized in 2063. And through a heroic effort, ramping up in
2
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 3

the 2020s, your generation managed to completely phase out fossil fuels,
rewiring the entire planet with a new generation of renewable energy
technologies and stabilizing the global climate.
At the end of the day, you shepherded both the human race and the
remaining species on the planet through a critical bottleneck in human
history, in which rising populations, aspiring to ever-higher levels of
consumption, ran up against critical global resource shortages. Above all, you
managed, by 2050, to roll back emissions of global warming pollution by 80%
and stabilize the climate. In doing all this, you created tens of millions of jobs,
helped lift billions of people out of poverty, and built a global economy that is
truly sustainable.
Will that be your story?
We hope it will. And if so, you have a lot of work to do! Yours will be the “greatest
generation” because you must guide the earth through this extraordinary half century.
Your decisions will have profound consequences not only for you and your children
but indeed for a thousand human generations to follow.
This book introduces you to economic concepts and tools that you will need to
make the journey. We begin by framing economics in terms of four basic questions
as they apply to the defining environmental—indeed, civilizational—challenge of your
lifetimes: global warming.

1.1 Four Questions

Did you drive to school today? Or to work? Every mile you drove, you pumped around
a pound of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into the air. This is a part of your small daily share
of the more than 25 billion pounds people around the world contribute annually from
the burning of carbon fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide
is a greenhouse gas—a compound that traps reflected heat from the earth’s surface
and contributes to global warming. Other greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide from
natural and human-made fertilizers; methane gas emitted from oil and gas production
and transport as well as from rice production and the digestive processes of cows
and sheep; and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once widely used for air conditioning,
refrigeration, and other industrial applications.1
As a result of industrialization and the ensuing rapid increase in greenhouse gases
in our atmosphere, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth’s surface
temperature will rise over the next few decades. The extent of the warming is uncertain:
low-end estimates suggest an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature of
3 degrees F by the year 2100. The official high-end prediction from the UN’s Inter-
national Panel on Climate Change is 11 degrees over this time period. To put that
number in perspective, during the last ice age, the earth’s average surface temperature
was only 9 degrees F colder than it is today.
The potential consequences of this warming range from manageable to
catastrophic. The first major impact will be on patterns of temperature, flooding,

1. Chlorofluorocarbons also deplete the earth’s protective ozone shield. This is a separate issue from global
warming and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 22.
4 INTRODUCTION

and drought, affecting agricultural output. As the planet heats up, it “forces” the
hydrologic cycle, adding more moisture to the air, leading to both more extreme
precipitation and flooding, along with increased temperatures, increased drought,
and changed patterns of drought. More northerly regions may actually experience an
increase in precipitation and yields, but the current grain belts of the United States,
Australia, and central Europe will become drier and agricultural output in these
regions will probably fall. The net global effect through the mid-century is expected
to be, on balance, negative. It will be particularly harsh in many developing countries,
which lack resources for irrigation and other adaptive measures. Tens of millions of
people are likely to be at risk of hunger as a result of climate change.
Second, natural ecosystems will also suffer from climate change. The U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that, by the year 2050, the southern
boundary of forest ecosystems could move northward by 600 kilometers, yet forests
can migrate naturally at a much slower pace. Several major vegetation models predict
large-scale forest diebacks in, among other places, the southern and eastern United
States and the Amazon Basin. Human and animal diseases and agricultural pests will
also thrive in a warmer climate.
Major impacts in the ocean will occur not only because of warming waters that,
for example, directly kill coral reefs but also because the oceans are absorbing large
quantities of the CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion. This in turn is leading to
ocean acidification: the pH of the ocean has dropped markedly in the last century. As
the ocean continues to acidify, life at the base of the ocean food chain could begin
to die off. On both land and sea, massive disruption of ecosystems and widespread
extinctions, affecting perhaps 30% or more of the life on the planet, are thus likely.
The third concern is the possibility of a sea-level rise as ice caps in Greenland and
Antarctica begin to melt, and the warming ocean expands. An increase in sea level of
3 feet—well within the realm of possibility within your lifetimes—would flood many
parts of Florida, Louisiana, Boston, and New York City as well as much of low-lying
countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands (unless they were protected by dikes).
As many as 1 billion people live in areas that might be directly affected.2
The globe is very likely locked into a further warming of at least 3 degrees F over
the next 100 years. This warming will have far-reaching human and ecosystem effects,
but if contained would be a manageable event. A greater warming, however, not only
would have a greater impact but also could result in truly catastrophic outcomes. One
of these would be the collapse and melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets, events that would, over the course of several hundred years, raise sea levels by
40 feet or more and inundate many of the world’s major cities. Some scientists think
that a warming of 4 degrees F or more would significantly raise the probability of this
occurrence. Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate scientist, stated in early 2006:
How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees [C] warmer than
today—which is what we expect later this century—sea levels were 25m [75
feet!] higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon . . . .

2. IPCC (2007) details these impacts.

 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 5

I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than
warming itself . . . . How long have we got? We have to stabilize emissions of
carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one
degree [C]. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and
many things could become unstoppable . . . . We don’t have much time left.3
A catastrophic collapse of the ice sheets is far from certain, but as Dr. Hansen
suggests, decisions made in the next decade about reducing greenhouse gas emissions
could have dramatic consequences lasting for tens of thousands of years.
Global warming is an environmental reality that presents stark choices. On the one
hand, substantial, short-term reductions in the human contribution to the greenhouse
effect would require substantial changes in Western energy use. In particular, our
casual reliance on fossil fuels for transportation, heat, and power would have to be
dramatically scaled back and new, clean energy sources developed. On the other hand,
the consequences of inaction are potentially disastrous. By continuing to pollute the
atmosphere, we may be condemning the next generation to even greater hardship.
This book focuses on the economic issues at stake in cases like global warming,
where human actions substantially alter the natural environment. In the process, we
examine the following four questions.

1. How much pollution is too much? Many people are tempted to answer simply:
any amount of pollution is too much. However, a little reflection reveals that
zero pollution is an unachievable and, in fact, undesirable goal. Pollution is a
by-product of living; for example, each time you drive in a car, you emit a small
amount of carbon dioxide to the air, thus exacerbating the greenhouse effect.
The question really is, “At what level are the benefits of pollution (cheap
transportation in the case we started with) outweighed by its costs?”
Different people will answer this question in different ways, depending on
their value systems: “costs” of pollution may be defined narrowly, as strictly
economic, or they may be broadened to include ethical considerations such as
fairness and the protection of rights. Costs may also be difficult to measure.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a rough weighing of benefits and costs is a critical
first step for deciding “how much is too much.”
2. Is government up to the job? After resolving the first question, we must then
rely on government to rewrite laws and regulations to control pollution. But
is our government able and willing to tackle the tough job of managing the
environment? The costs and mistakes associated with bureaucratic decision
making, as well as the likelihood of political influence in the process, will clearly
have an impact on government’s ability to respond effectively to the challenge.
The first Earth Day was April 20, 1970. Also that year, the U.S. Congress
passed the first major pollution control initiative, the National Environmental
Policy Act, which, among other things, created the EPA. Looking back over
our 40-plus years of experience in regulating the environment, we have a

3. See Hansen (2006) and Hansen (2005).

6 INTRODUCTION

record of both successes and failures to evaluate. Such an exploration can help
us design policies to increase the effectiveness of the governmental response.
3. How can we do better? Suppose that as a society we decide on a particular
target: for example, reduce carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level by
2020. Given the limitations that government might face, identified in the
answer to the second question, how can we best achieve that goal? A long
list of policies might be used: regulations, taxes, permit systems, technology
subsidies (or their removal), research incentives, infrastructure investment,
right-to-know laws, product labeling, legal liability, fines, and jail terms. Which
policies will most successfully induce firms and consumers to meet the target?
4. Can we resolve global issues? Finally, regulating pollution within a single
nation is a difficult task. Yet problems such as global warming transcend
national boundaries. Brazilians say that they will stop cutting down and
burning their rain forests to create crop and rangeland as soon as we stop
driving gas-guzzling cars. (Although the United States has only 4% of the
world’s population, we account for over 19% of the greenhouse gases.)
How can this kind of international coordination be achieved? Are economic
development and environmental quality necessarily in conflict? And to what
extent can the explosion in population growth and per capita resource use,
which ultimately drive environmental problems, be managed?
Let us return to our discussion of global warming and see what type of answers
we might develop to these four questions. Global warming is a consequence of what is
known as the greenhouse effect. Solar energy enters the earth’s biosphere in the form
of visible and ultraviolet light from the sun. The first law of thermodynamics—energy
can be neither created nor destroyed—requires that this energy go somewhere, and
much of it is radiated back into the biosphere as infrared radiation or heat. The CO2
and other greenhouse gases surrounding the earth let in the visible and ultraviolet
light from the sun. Yet, like a blanket, these gases trap the reflected infrared radiation
(heat) close to the earth’s surface.
Until the present time, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect has been primarily
beneficial. Without the true planet’s blanket of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other
gases, the average temperature on earth would be about 91 degrees F colder—well
below the freezing point. The problem we face today is the steady increase in human-
made greenhouse gases, which began with the Industrial Revolution but dramatically
accelerated after World War II. In less than two centuries, the thickness of the carbon
dioxide blanket in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25%, rising from 280
parts per million (ppm) in 1880 to over 400 ppm today. Every year the blanket gets
thicker by about 2 ppm. The question facing humanity is, how thick should we let this
heat-trapping blanket grow? Should we try to hold it to 450 ppm? 550 ppm? 650 ppm?
Or even roll it back to 350 ppm?
Is human-induced warming here yet? The earth’s average temperature has risen
more than 1 degree F over the last century, and the warming has accelerated in the
last few decades. The years 2005 and 2010 tied for the hottest on record, and the last
decade was probably the hottest in the last several thousand years. Back in 1995, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization of some 2,500
scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations, made it official—the
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 7

greenhouse effect is here. According to the IPCC, “the balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Since then, the evidence
supporting human-induced warming has become much stronger.4
Today, scientists are virtually unanimous in their belief that further warming will
occur, but the magnitude of the warming is difficult to predict. Nevertheless, we do
have a range: recall 3–11 degrees F.
Uncertainty in predicting the degree of global warming is due primarily to the
presence of positive and negative feedback effects. If it were necessary only to predict
the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature, the problem would be difficult
enough. But changing temperatures will in turn affect many different parts of the earth
and its surface, leading to either an acceleration of the warming (positive feedback) or
a deceleration (negative feedback).
Two examples of the latter include the possibility that increasing cloud cover will
reduce the amount of radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, or that higher rates
of carbon dioxide will lead to higher rates of plant growth and thus more trapping
of carbon dioxide. Negative feedbacks would clearly be welcome, but unfortunately,
positive feedbacks appear just as likely, if not more so, to occur. For example, higher
temperatures may generate widespread forest fires and forest dieback in regions like
the Amazon; lead to the emission of methane and CO2 currently trapped in frozen
bogs and peat fields at high latitudes; expose heat-absorbing darker earth under ice
shields; or reduce the capacity of ocean organisms to fix carbon dioxide in their shells.
These positive feedbacks have led some researchers to believe that at some point,
global warming will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, in which the initial warming
will feed on itself. Under this scenario, policymakers no longer face a continuum of
temperature possibilities: a warming of somewhere between 4 degrees and 11 degrees.
Instead, there are only two options; either hold warming to the low end, 4–5 degrees, or
risk triggering positive feedback loops that quickly drive the planet’s temperatures up
by 9–11 degrees, the equivalent of a swing of ice-age magnitude, only in the opposite
direction.
In the face of this uncertainty, what action should be taken to prevent or mitigate
the consequences of global warming? Following the outline described, we can begin to
tackle this daunting question piece by piece.

1.2 How Much Pollution Is Too Much?

First of all, where do we now stand on global warming emission targets? At the Earth
Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992, attended by the leaders of more than
140 countries, the industrialized nations signed a pledge to “try” to stabilize greenhouse
gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, this promise was not kept. In
the United States, low energy prices and strong economic growth boosted greenhouse
gas emissions by 19% between 1990 and 2009.
Faced with the failure of this voluntary approach, at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan,
in 1997, the industrial countries of the world signed the Kyoto global warming treaty.
The accord requires participating countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse

4. See IPCC (1996) and IPCC (2007).

8 INTRODUCTION

gases to around 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Poor countries—including major

emitters like India and China—were explicitly excluded under the reasoning that rich
countries should shoulder the initial burden of developing clean-energy technologies
like wind and solar power, making it affordable in the long run for the developing
world to come on board. The treaty was ratified by the European countries, as well as
Russia, Japan, and Canada, and entered into force in early 2005. All of these nations
are taking implementation measures, though not all are likely to achieve the Kyoto
targets. More on this in Chapter 21.
However, President Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto process,
arguing that the country simply could not afford to tackle the global warming problem.
Instead, he called for industry to take voluntary measures to reduce the rate of increase
of emissions (not to reduce emissions themselves). In 2009 President Obama proposed
U.S. cuts of around 17% by 2020, which would bring the nation back to 1990-level
emissions, not quite achieving the Kyoto targets, ten years late. Was Kyoto the
right short-term goal? Should emissions be reduced even further, as some European
countries are already doing? Or, as Bush argued, should they not be reduced at all?
One way to answer this question is to use a benefit-cost framework. Quantifying
the benefits and costs of reducing emissions is a difficult task, primarily because
uncertainties loom very large in the case of climate change. On the benefits side,
analysts are required to estimate the damages that will be avoided 100 years hence,
by stabilizing CO2 as it affects not only global agriculture and human health but also
species extinction and biodiversity. Moreover, across the planet, some regions will
gain and others will lose; impacts will be proportionately larger in poor countries and
smaller in rich countries. Developing countries will be hardest hit because they tend
already to be in warmer and drier parts of the planet—but more importantly, because
they have fewer financial resources for adapting their agriculture or building sea walls.
Putting a monetary value on such benefits presents difficult issues, among them:
How do we deal with uncertainty, and the possibility of cataclysmic change? How do
we value damage to future generations? Can we measure the value of intangible or
“priceless” benefits such as human suffering and death averted or forests saved? How
do we weigh the fact that certain countries will lose more than others in the warming
process? These are issues we explore in detail later in the book.
Nevertheless, and bearing in mind these large uncertainties, two prominent
economists—Sir Nicholas Stern, former head of the World Bank, and William
Nordhaus from Yale University—have recently offered very different perspectives
on the net benefits of aggressively reducing global warming pollution. The two
researchers start with different estimates of “business-as-usual” warming by 2100; that
is, the warming that would occur in the absence of any laws or government policies
requiring or subsidizing emission reductions. Stern explores a range of between 5 and
11 degrees F of warming from current levels, while Nordhaus focuses on a single
warming estimate, a “best guess” of under 5 degrees F.
Stern’s projections are that, unchecked, global warming would reduce global output
of goods and services from 5 to 20%, and the higher end is more likely. (For a reference
point, the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a reduction in U.S. GDP of 25%.)
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 9

Nordhaus is much more sanguine, arguing that by 2100, the impacts would be closer to
a significant but much smaller 3% of world output.5
With such large damages, Stern’s analysis calls for rapid cuts in emissions to hold
global warming to the low end: 4 degrees F. This would require global reductions
of 25% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, since emissions from India, China, and
Brazil will keep growing for some time, this means 80% reductions by 2050 for the
developed countries. Stern estimates that this policy would cost—in the form of reduced
consumption—about 1% of global GDP per year by 2050, equivalent to about $540
billion (about half a trillion) in today’s dollars.
Nordhaus, by contrast, calls for much smaller cuts of about 15% below business-
as-usual, rising to 25% by 2050 and 45% by 2100. Because emissions will increase a
lot under business-as-usual, relative to 1990 levels, Nordhaus is actually recommending
an increase in global annual emissions of around 40% by 2050. Under Nordhaus’s
analysis, this policy of holding emissions down relative to their unregulated state would
trim warming from a projected 5 degrees F increase to 4 degrees F. Nordhaus figures
that the total benefits of this reduced warming will be $7 trillion while the costs will
run $2 trillion, leaving society $5 trillion better off.
These are two very different policy prescriptions: “deep cuts” in emissions, versus
“start slow, ramp up.” But interestingly, both researchers arrive at similar answers to
the “how much is too much” question: both recommend holding further global warming
to the low end of 4 degrees F! Their big differences in recommended emission cuts
instead reflect disagreement on three points: (1) how much warming will be generated
by business-as-usual, (2) the costs of acting to slow climate change, and (3) the costs of
inaction.
First, on the climate-warming side, Nordhaus sticks with a single “best guess” to
back up his start-slow policy recommendation. If business as usual “only” leads to a
5 degrees F warming by 2100, it won’t require as much in emissions cuts to get us back to
4 degrees. Stern, by contrast, is both less certain about the simple correlation between
CO2 buildup and future temperatures, and much more worried about the possibility
of positive feedbacks and the unleashing of a runaway greenhouse effect of the kind
discussed earlier. Stern takes seriously the possibility that business-as-usual will blow
quickly past 5 degrees F, and push us beyond 10 degrees F, within your lifetimes.
A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study clearly supports Stern on
this—it pushes the median projection of warming by 2100 under business as usual to a
high-end, catastrophic 10 degrees F, with a one in nine chance that temperatures could
rise as high as 12.5 degrees F.6
Second, Stern sees deep cuts in emissions as achievable at relatively low cost to
the global economy: 1% of GDP. The Stern perspective is that energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar electricity offer great promise
for de-linking economic growth from fossil fuel use relatively quickly, thus achieving
emission reductions cheaply. In important cases, emission reductions can even be

5. The discussion in these paragraphs is drawn from Stern (2006) and Nordhaus (2008). Ackerman and
Stanton (2010) point out that Nordhaus’s damage function implies that an increase in global temperature of
19 degrees C (34 degrees F) would be required to cut global GDP in half! Nordhaus is clearly a technological
optimist.
6. Sokolov et al. (2009).
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
“Please quote 187, 986/10,
“and address to the Under-Secretary of State,
“Home Office, London, S.W.

“Home Office, Whitehall,

“9th February, 1910.
“Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 31st ultimo, forwarding
statement made by Lady Constance Lytton, as to her treatment in
H.M. Prison, Liverpool, and your further letter of the 4th inst., I am
directed by the Secretary of State to say that he has caused careful
and detailed inquiry to be made by the Prison Commissioners into
the truth of the charges brought by Lady Constance Lytton against
the officers of the prison, and as the result of that inquiry he is
satisfied that those charges are without foundation and that there is
no justification for Lady Constance Lytton’s account of her
experience while she was in the prison.
“The Secretary of State cannot discuss her statements in detail. A
single instance must suffice. Lady Constance, with a view to showing
that her treatment as ‘Jane Warton’ differed from her treatment
when her identity was known, asserts that, whereas she was
thoroughly examined at Holloway and Newcastle Prisons and was
found to be suffering from heart disease, no attempt was made to
examine her at Liverpool before she was forcibly fed. On reception at
Liverpool Prison on the 15th ultimo, Lady Constance refused to allow
herself to be examined and told the deputy medical officer, who was
on duty, that she was quite well. He asked her a second time to
allow him to examine her and she again refused. His evidence on
this point is corroborated by that of the wardress who was present,
and the matter is placed beyond doubt by the entry ‘refused
examination’ which was made at the time in the medical reception
register at the prison. Before artificially feeding her for the first time,
the senior medical officer applied his ear to the chest wall and
satisfied himself that the condition of her heart was such that the
operation of artificial feeding could, in the absence of active
resistance by the patient, be performed without any immediate risk
of injury to her health. In this connection you will observe that the
diagnosis of the medical officers at Holloway and Newcastle, arrived
at after thorough examination, is fully confirmed by the report of
Lady Constance Lytton’s own medical attendant, which you have
been good enough to forward. ‘Jane Warton’s’ foolish conduct in
refusing to allow herself to be examined and the deception which
deprived the medical officers of all knowledge of the medical history
of her case, must be held responsible for the fact that the true
condition of her heart remained undiscovered while she was in
Liverpool Prison. When it was found that the injury to her health
caused by her persistent refusal to take food could not be prevented
by artificial feeding, her discharge was recommended by the medical
officer and was authorised by the Secretary of State, and this was
done before anyone at the Home Office or at the prison was aware
of her identity. The statement that the medical officer was guilty of
slapping his patient’s face is utterly devoid of truth, and can only be
the outcome of the imagination.
“In these circumstances the Secretary of State does not consider
that any further inquiry as to the truth of the statements made and
published by Lady Constance Lytton is called for, and he must
therefore decline to accede to your request for further investigation.
“I am, sir,
“Your obedient servant,
“(Signed) Edward Troup.”
“Arthur W. Chapman, Esq.,
“33, Whitehall Court, S.W.”

In this letter it seems to be thought that it does not matter mis-

stating things, provided the mis-statement is a small one, then the
small things can be added together. Even supposing everything to be
true in this letter, no mention is made of calling in the other doctor
five days before I was released, on purpose to test my heart. He did
so with a stethoscope on the heart itself, though anything but
carefully, and pronounced it quite sound.
Eighteen days after my release I called in Dr. Anders Ryman, of 4,
Wetherby Place, to give me Swedish treatment. He found that my
heart had regained its normal size, but he thought my condition too
critical for any but the very mildest form of treatment; insisted on
my being kept entirely in bed, absolutely quiet, and forbade all
visitors or letters being brought to me. He would not let me be
moved to the country for another four weeks, and, even after that,
urged me to exert myself as little as possible and only walk upstairs
backwards. He seemed to be alarmed at the great fluctuations
between the heart beat when still and when I moved or spoke.
During my imprisonment, the side of the jaw on which the gag
was used became painful and the whole mouth very sensitive, but
five or six days after release all swelling had subsided and pain was
only occasional and mild. About ten days after my release, the crown
of my artificial tooth broke away entirely. Owing to this and to
sensitiveness in the upper tooth affected, I did not use that side of
my mouth in eating, but I was unable to leave my bed to visit the
dentist. Some time after I was up the doctors urged upon me that I
was still unfit to undergo dental treatment. I went in March, but my
dentist thought I could not undergo any but a temporary treatment
of the harmfully exposed surfaces. It was not till April that full
treatment was finally given; that is why the date of the report made
by the dentist is so long after the release from prison:—

“10, Park Crescent,

“Portland Place, W.,
“April 14, 1910.
“Lady Constance Lytton.
“In order to restore the masticatory efficiency of the left side of
the lower jaw, a bridge consisting of one gold crown and two
porcelain crowns was constructed. This was attached in May, 1896,
and has continued in satisfactory condition until the application of a
gag, recently employed in forcible feeding, cracked and broke away
the face of the crown of the bicuspid on the lower jaw, also breaking
the enamel of the upper natural tooth.
“Sufficient force having been employed to occasion this damage, it
was feared that the root of the tooth which forms the front
anchorage of the bridge was split, but this is not the case, and the
inflammatory symptoms have now subsided.
“H. Uren Olver.”

On February 3 came the news that Selina Martin and Elsie Howey
were released from Walton Gaol. I was by this time in bed and
received no news and no letters; when the information was brought
to me, I felt quite overwhelmed with joy. This release was more than
three weeks before their sentence had expired.
By the time the last letter had been received from the Home
Office, February 9, my eldest brother had returned from abroad, and
he took up the case. All his attempts to have a public inquiry failed.
Mr. Gladstone was relieved of the Home Office preparatory to taking
up the work of High Commissioner in South Africa, and my brother
pleaded in vain with everyone that had to do with the matter. In the
meantime, the W.S.P.U. was asked not to take up my case in any
way for fear that the authorities would thereupon refuse to listen,
and a letter from Sir Edward Troup to the Times, in which he said
there was no foundation for the declarations against the officials,
remained unanswered.
On March 30, my brother had the following letter in the Times:—

“Sir,—On February 10 a letter was sent to the Press by Sir Edward

Troup, relative to a statement made by my sister, Lady Constance
Lytton, regarding her treatment in Liverpool Prison, in which he
declared on behalf of the Home Secretary that there was no
foundation for any of the charges which she had made. I am anxious
to explain why this official imputation of untruthfulness has hitherto
remained unanswered.
“Lady Constance was seriously ill at the time as the result of her
prison experiences, and unable to defend herself. I therefore
undertook the task of vindicating her veracity. Before making any
public statement on her behalf I was anxious to find out what steps
had been taken by the Home Office to investigate the matters
referred to in her statement, and I hoped by a friendly intervention
to secure a full and impartial inquiry into all the circumstances of her
treatment by the prison officials.
“I have had several communications with the Home Office on the
subject, and owing to the retirement of Mr. Gladstone and the
appointment of a new Home Secretary, they have necessarily been
protracted over a considerable period. My attitude throughout has
been entirely conciliatory, and the only claim which I have made was
that in the interests of justice, charges of this nature should be
submitted to a full and impartial inquiry which would, of course,
involve a separate examination of both the parties concerned. This
claim has been refused by the Home Office on the grounds that the
prison officials have been closely interrogated, and that as they deny
entirely every one of the charges made, ‘no useful purpose would be
served’ by granting my request.
“In the absence of such an inquiry as I asked for, the matter must
be left to the opinion of unbiassed minds. I desire, however, to say
that nothing which I have been able to learn has in any way shaken
my belief in the substantial accuracy of my sister’s account. The idea
that her charges can be disposed of by the bare denial of the
persons against whom they are made, is not likely to commend itself
to anyone outside the Home Office, and no amount of denial can get
over the following facts:—
“1. Lady Constance Lytton, when imprisoned in Newcastle, after
refusing to answer the medical questions put to her and adopting
the hunger-strike, received a careful and thorough medical
examination, which disclosed symptoms of ‘serious heart disease,’
and on these grounds she was released as unfit to submit to forcible
feeding.
“2. Three months later ‘Jane Warton,’ when imprisoned at
Liverpool, also refused to answer medical questions or to take prison
food. On this occasion she was entered in the prison books as
having refused medical examination, and was forcibly fed eight
times. Such medical examination as took place during the forcible
feeding failed, according to the medical officer’s report, to disclose
any symptoms of heart disease, and she was eventually released on
the grounds of loss of weight and general physical weakness.
“These facts are incontrovertible, and though the Home Office is
quite satisfied that in both cases the prison officials performed their
duty in the most exemplary fashion, your readers will form their own
opinions of the justice of a Government Department which brings
accusations of untruthfulness against an individual whilst refusing
the only means by which the truth can be established.
“I am, your obedient servant,
“Lytton.”

My brother did not give up his efforts till in April Mr. Winston
Churchill, the new Home Secretary, who was well known to him,
came to stay at Knebworth, his country place. Mr. Churchill read
through the whole case, until he came to the report of the letter to
my mother written on the slate. “’Twould be hopeless,” he said, “to
bring forward any complaint with this letter in the background.” I
don’t know, of course, what they had made of it, as it had been
rubbed out long ago, but I know that I had not told my mother
anything of the treatment. I had said that the forcible feeding was
“only pain”—so it was.
In the autumn of this year, 1910, I had a slight heart-seizure. I got
out of bed in the morning, and was taken with paralysis down one
side. I could not move for about an hour, when I managed to crawl
back to bed. I had a nurse for six weeks and then it was over.
 CHAPTER XV
THE CONCILIATION BILL

On June 12, 1910, I received a letter from Mrs. Pethick Lawrence,

in which she told me that I had been made a paid organizer to the
Union, at £2 a week, and that the committee wished to make this
appointment retrospective for the past six months from January,
1910. I felt very much honoured and pleased. It enabled me to take
a small flat in London near the Euston Road, so that I was not far
from the office at Clement’s Inn and close, too, to a good many
railway stations. It was quicker for me than having to go home to
the country when I was on speaking tours, and also far more
convenient for the London work.
In February, 1910, a truce was called after the elections. Mr.
Gladstone, made Lord Gladstone, went to South Africa as Governor-
General, and he was succeeded by Mr. Winston Churchill at the
Home Office. Mr. Brailsford had spent much time and effort
negotiating between all the Suffrage parties in the House of
Commons, and he as secretary, and my brother, Lord Lytton, as
president, negotiated a committee for the “Conciliation Bill.” This is
the Bill in full:—

“The Conciliation Bill for Woman Suffrage.

“A Bill to confer the Parliamentary Franchise on Women.
“1. Every woman possessed of a household qualification within the
meaning of the Representation of the People Act (1884) shall be
entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote for
the county or borough in which the qualifying premises are situated.
 “2. For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified
by marriage from being registered as a voter, provided that a
husband and wife shall not both be registered as voters in the same
Parliamentary borough or county division.”

That is the Bill which was slightly modified in 1911, so as to

remove any reasonable fear of plural or faggot voting. It looked as if
the Conciliation Bill had everything in its favour and that it would
pass. Ninety city, town and county councils, and thirty district
councils petitioned or passed resolutions that the Bill should become
law. These included the city councils of Birmingham, Bradford,
Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester,
Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield. In 1910 the Bill was carried on
second reading by a majority of 110. In 1911 it was again read a
second time and secured a majority of 167. Among those who voted
for it were Mr. Birrell, Mr. John Burns, Sir Edward Grey, Mr.
Runciman; Mr. Balfour, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Wyndham;
Mr. Barnes, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Snowden;
Mr. Devlin, Mr. Healy, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. W. Redmond. All parties
made friends over it.
On Friday, November 18, 1910, Mr. Asquith made a statement in
the House of Commons omitting all reference to Woman Suffrage,
but announcing the Dissolution for Monday, November 28. On
learning that Mr. Asquith had definitely decided to shelve the
Conciliation Bill, it was determined to send a Deputation to him
forthwith. At the head were Mrs. Pankhurst, the founder of the
W.S.P.U. and Mrs. Garatt Anderson, twice Mayor of Aldeburgh, who
is one of the pioneer women doctors and sister of Mrs. Fawcett.
Among other well-known women were Mrs. Hertha Ayrton, the
distinguished scientist, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Saul Solomon,
Mrs. Brackenbury, widow of General Brackenbury, over seventy years
of age, Miss Neligan, who is seventy-eight years of age, the Hon.
Mrs. Haverfield, and the Princess Sophia Dhuleep Singh. The
Deputation was composed of 300 women, but was divided into
detachments of twelve each. They were not received and were
treated worse than any since the conflict between women and the
Government began. The orders of the Home Secretary were, it
appears, that the police were to be present, both in uniform and in
plain clothes among the crowd, and that the women were to be
thrown from one to the other. The police were guilty both of torture
and of indecency. The women were accused of violence and
mendacity. Reports were afterwards made by Lord Robert Cecil, K.C.,
and Mr. Ellis J. Griffith, K.C., M.P., on the women whom they had
examined. Lord Robert Cecil writes in his letter to the Times:—

“All that can be said at present is that the women strenuously

deny that they were guilty of any such violence. If they were, it is at
least curious that they were not immediately arrested, and that, as I
understand, no evidence of any serious assault was offered against
any of those who were ultimately brought before the Court....
“Mr. Churchill accuses them of mendacity. Such an accusation
requires more than the ipse dixit of a Minister to support it. Nor is it
in accordance with the principles of British justice to reject without
investigation the evidence of scores of apparently respectable
women.
“In conclusion, may I ask whether anyone thinks that if the
Deputation had consisted of unarmed men of the same character,
their demand for an inquiry would have been refused? Who can
doubt that the Home Secretary and the other Ministers would have
tumbled over one another in their eagerness to grant anything that
was asked? Are we then to take it as officially admitted that in this
country there is one law for male electors and another for voteless
women?
“Yours obediently,
“Robert Cecil.”

Mr. Ellis Griffith wrote at the end of his letter to the Times:—
 “It is certainly difficult, under the circumstances, to bring
responsibility home to individuals, but I am amply satisfied that
there was unnecessary and excessive violence used against the
women who took part in the Deputation, and that they were
assaulted in a way that cannot be justified.
“Under these circumstances, I strongly support a searching and
impartial inquiry....
“Yours faithfully,
“Ellis J. Griffith.”

The Home Secretary refused all idea of a public inquiry.

The morning after the Deputation, Saturday, November 19, 1910,
those who had been arrested the night before were all dismissed; it
was thought bad election tactics to be responsible for the
imprisonment of women of good reputation who were merely
fighting for their freedom.
Mr. Asquith on Friday, November 18, promised that he would make
a statement about the Women’s Bill on the following Tuesday. On
Tuesday, November 22, accordingly, it was made: “The Government
will, if they are still in power, give facilities in the next Parliament for
effectively proceeding with a Bill which is so framed as to admit of
free amendment.” The statement fulfilled none of the conditions
which had been made by the W.S.P.U. We held that the pledge must
be to give full facilities for a Woman Suffrage Bill next Session—next
Parliament was a mockery of a pledge. The Bill in question must be
no more extended in scope than the Bill introduced by Mr.
Shackleton or the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill introduced two
years ago by Mr. Stanger. A pledge to give facilities to a Bill on a so-
called democratic basis would be worthless, it would not have a
chance of passing through either House of Parliament.
The House rose immediately when Mr. Asquith had made his
statements. The women waited this pronouncement in the Caxton
Hall, and on receipt of it marched to Downing Street, Mrs. Pankhurst
at their head, to see Mr. Asquith. Here the detachment of police at
first was small and the line was broken by the onrush of the women.
But reinforcements of police rapidly arrived and a severe struggle
ensued. Many women were hurt who were thrown about the street
or crushed, and there were 150 to 160 charged at the police court
the next day. In the evening parties of women visited the houses of
the Cabinet and threw stones, breaking some of their windows. Mr.
Muskett, who prosecuted the next day, withdrew all the cases of
“simple obstruction,” and only allowed the cases of “stone-throwing
and assault.” From the day of “Black Friday,” as November 18, 1910,
was called, stone-throwing became easy to the women—it ensured
arrest instead of being assaulted and injured.
This was the eve of the election. The policy of the W.S.P.U. was to
oppose all Liberal candidates unless they could get a definite pledge
from the Prime Minister that, if in power, he would allow the
Conciliation Bill to be taken through all its stages next Session. The
Liberals were returned, still commanding a Parliamentary majority in
the House of Commons, and the House of Commons contained an
even larger majority of members prepared to vote for a practicable
scheme of Woman Suffrage, on the lines of the Conciliation Bill. In
May, 1911, this Bill was brought in by Sir Alfred Mond; it
triumphantly passed the second reading by a majority of 167.
In June Lord Lytton had written to Mr. Asquith asking for
assurances (1) that the facilities offered for next Session were
intended as an effective opportunity for carrying the Bill, and not
merely for academic discussion; (2) that the week offered would not
be construed rigidly, and also that provided the Committee stage
were got through in the time, additional days for report and third
reading would be forthcoming; and (3) that there would be
reasonable opportunities for making use of the closure. To this Mr.
Asquith replied (on Friday, June 16, 1911):—

“My dear Lytton,—In reply to your letter on the subject of facilities

for the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, I would refer you to some
observations recently made in a speech at the National Liberal Club
by Sir Edward Grey, which accurately express the intentions of the
Government.
“It follows (to answer your specific inquiries) that ‘the week’
offered will be interpreted with reasonable elasticity, that the
Government will interpose no obstacle to a proper use of the
closure, and that if (as you suggest) the Bill gets through Committee
in the time proposed, the extra days required for report and third
reading would not be refused.
“The Government, though divided in opinion on the merits of the
Bill, are unanimous in their determination to give effect not only in
the letter but in the spirit to the promise in regard to facilities which
I made on their behalf before the last General Election.
“Yours, etc.,
“H. H. Asquith.”

This letter was further certified in August:—

“My dear Lytton,—I have no hesitation in saying that the promises

made by, and on behalf of, the Government, in regard to giving
facilities for the ‘Conciliation Bill,’ will be strictly adhered to, both in
letter and spirit.
“Yours sincerely,
“H. H. Asquith.
“August 23, 1911.”

This promise, after the phenomenal majority in the House of

Commons, was a solemn pledge made by Mr. Asquith to be fulfilled
in the next year. It was a pledge which the friends of women took
absolutely in good faith. On the strength of it, the truce was
prolonged in 1911 with belief in the guarantee for the following year.
 On November 7, 1911, Mr. Asquith announced to a deputation of
the People’s Suffrage Federation that he was going to bring in a
Manhood Suffrage Bill next Session. There was no agitation or
demand for more votes for men; this was in answer to the
widespread demand of votes for women. The majority already
recorded for Woman Suffrage in the House of Commons was
composed of members of all political parties. The Government’s
present policy destroyed this composite majority by alienating
Unionists and moderate Liberals. In other words, it rendered
impossible the non-party solution of the Woman Suffrage question,
towards which we had been working for months. We consented to
the Conciliation Bill because it gave virtual equality to women with
men, and because it made inevitable the equality of the sexes under
any subsequent franchise measure. But we absolutely refused to
accept the Conciliation Bill as the accompaniment of Manhood
Suffrage Bill.
We and many other of the Suffrage Societies were received in
deputation by Mr. Asquith, only to be told the case over again. He
had not changed his opinion since 1908. The Manhood Suffrage Bill
would make no difference to us, who could bring in an amendment!
The leaders of the W.S.P.U. determined to go on a deputation to
the House of Commons on Tuesday, November 21, with Mrs. Pethick
Lawrence to lead them. I intended to accompany them as a stone-
thrower; the police on Black Friday (1910) had made the other way
—that of going on a deputation—impossible for me, unless I were to
see death, and this seemed useless. It was an understood thing that
this time, if we were imprisoned, we should not hunger-strike.
 CHAPTER XVI
HOLLOWAY REVISITED: MY FOURTH

IMPRISONMENT

I determined that I would do my work alone. I was afraid that, if I

combined with others, I might fail them, through illness, when they
counted on me. Some days later Miss Lawless said she would come
too, and, as she kindly chose to do the job with me, all was well. I
selected a post office window in Victoria Street, on the left-hand
side, facing Westminster. I went to buy some stamps there the day
before to make sure of my bearings. I studied all the windows where
it would be safe, and where not safe, to do the work of smashing
without hurting anyone inside.
A friend, Mrs. MacLeod, came to see me the evening before,
November 20, 1911. She brought me flowers, lovely lilies-of-the-
valley and two bunches of violets. She told me she had bought them
in Piccadilly from a girl that was sitting round the fountain. “They are
for a friend of mine who is going to fight for the women to-morrow”;
she wasn’t sure she had said it in a way the girl could understand.
“Oh! May God bless her, God bless them all! Here, lady, take this
extra bunch of violets for her.” She called this out enthusiastically, as
she collected the flowers.
This time I had a small hammer as well as three stones wrapped
in paper. The hammer, of course, was the safest as well as the most
efficient of my tools, but one had to be quite near to the window in
order to use it. Another dear friend, Dr. Alice Ker, came to me from
Liverpool on the day, Tuesday, November 21. She was coming to the
fray in Westminster, but she did not wish to get arrested. Towards
six o’clock we took a taxi and went together to the beginning of
Victoria Street. Then we got out and each went our own way. I
walked up and down the street, first along one side, then along the
other, and I inspected the side parallel streets. Victoria Street I had
always supposed was rather a long one, but on this occasion it was
infinitely short, and I seemed to pass the same people over and over
again. Once I jumped into a ’bus to go up again towards
Westminster, and there I came across many of my friends, who
doubtless were going to the preliminary meeting at Caxton Hall. At
last when standing, as it seemed to me, for the fiftieth time in front
of a door with pillars, which was our trysting place, I met Miss
Lawless and soon after Miss Douglas Smith, who had said she would
join us for a little, as she had to go to all who were “active” in
Victoria Street. We turned into a “Lyons” for some tea, the whole
place was full of our friends and a detective or two. A cat was there;
she came to lie on my lap and I had to turn her off when we left.
The time was getting near; we were to wait until the clock struck
8; we were none of us to move before and not much later. At last
there was a noise of many people coming round the corner of a
street; it was Mrs. Pethick Lawrence walking at the head of her
Deputation. A large crowd surrounded them and cheered them on
their way to Westminster. Miss Lawless and I had taken up our
position already on the steps leading to the post office we had
selected. As soon as the Deputation had passed, the clock of Big Ben
began striking eight. I said, “I can wait no longer,” and I turned and
smashed the glass of two doors and one window. I raised my arms
and did it deliberately, so that every one in the street could see. Miss
Lawless smashed the windows to my right. We were going down the
steps and I was afraid no policemen had been near, when two came
from over the way. All was peaceable and friendly. My policeman
said to me with a smile, “I’ll take you this way, lady, see? And that
won’t inconvenience you.” With that he adjusted his grasp at my
elbow. I said to him: “Unless you are obliged, don’t hurry your pace
more than you can help,” and he walked at my pace through
Westminster to Cannon Row. He also disarmed me, taking my
hammer. In Westminster the crowd was immense and at the bottom
of Whitehall, but we got through all right, and Miss Lawless kept
close behind me.
Cannon Row was already crowded with women. We stood in a
closely packed ring to give our names, and afterwards our names
were called out before we went upstairs. To my surprise and great
delight Lady Sybil Smith was there. I knew she herself had been
wishing to go on a deputation for some time. We were taken into
the cells to be searched, but this was not the grim business that it
sounds. We were left to walk quite by ourselves; a policeman
showed us in and we were put four or five together in a cell. The
door was left open, and a wardress asked respectfully if she might
search us. We said, “Yes, most certainly,” and began to deliver up
our stones. The wardress’s face was all kindness, and no sooner had
the policeman gone away from the door than she burst out with:
“Oh! you ladies, I’d be with you to-morrow if it weren’t for my child.
I am a widow with one child. If only these politicians knew what that
meant! They can talk fine about the widow, but when it comes to
her earning a livelihood they don’t help her.” It seemed wonderful,
she understood. Meanwhile she was picking out the stones from our
pockets. We were allowed to go back to the central room as soon as
it was finished, we left a friend behind us in the wardress. Upstairs,
in the policemen’s billiard room, we sat in crowds, and everything
was noticeably different from last time. All was joy and triumph, and
there seemed the echo of these from the street. I felt quite an old
hand, and was going about the room collecting telegrams; I had
bought a packet of forms on the chance. A policeman was singled
out and stood waiting for them in a meek and respectful attitude.
One woman, who looked about sixty or sixty-five, had written a
telegram but had put no signature; I asked if there was to be none.
She hesitated for a moment and then added: “Well—put Mother.” I
thought it must be rather trying when it was a “daughter,” but much
more when it was a “mother,” and she getting on in years. There
was a girl lying down in the window recess where I had gone with
my cough last time; she was ashy pale. I went up to her and asked
her if she felt ill. Her face immediately lit up with a radiant smile
—“I’m not ill now, but I have been for three months.” I said how
wonderful was the feeling of the movement, as one realised the
difference which a year had made it was impossible that one should
feel depressed, though one might be depressed for oneself. “No,”
she said, “I am never depressed now.” Had she a mother? “Oh!
mother would be here too, only she is a cripple.”
Mrs. Pethick Lawrence had come and was given a great cheer. She
looked well and beamingly happy. The Deputation had been much
more hustled about than we who had done damage, but still, there
was no real roughness that I could hear of, and they had been
arrested comparatively quickly. Mr. Lawrence’s welcome face came
and he bailed us out, though it was a long business this time. When
we drove away, every window in Whitehall bore the mark of the
women upon it, with the unmistakable smashing, till it looked, as I
passed, as though every window smiled.
On Wednesday, November 22, I sent off a telegram, saying that I
was arrested, to our organiser at Liverpool for a meeting at which I
was going to speak. It was a joint meeting of W.S.P.U., National
Unionist and Conservative Suffragists; Lord Selborne was to speak
for the Conservatives. It had been arranged when we were at peace
with the Government; that peace was now at an end. I then went to
Bow Street. There were crowds of women; we each took luggage
and wraps, for under Mr. Winston Churchill’s new rule we were
allowed to wear our own day and night clothes, and not obliged to
have prison food. There was no difference in being allowed to see
visitors or have letters. Books not dealing with current events were
allowed, but one could not take them out of prison. At Bow Street
we were put into the big room upstairs; again a policemen’s billiard
room. Large as it was, it was very crowded, and I kept my seat on
my luggage in the passage outside. Amongst others, there was a
little American woman, whose husband stuck by her like a man till
he should be separated by imprisonment. They had been in India,
had heard much there about the Suffragettes, and one lady with
whom they had dined had warned him against his wife becoming
one of them. I saw there two Hertfordshire members, which did my
heart good, when I remembered that a little time ago the whole
county was asleep. Whenever I was able, I sat back on my luggage
and wrote letters; it was the only way I could escape from talking to
everyone, which was most delightful but I was very tired. We waited
all day to learn in the evening that we must return to-morrow. I
went to my mother from Bow Street who was staying in London at
that time.
Three times this autumn, after making a speech, I had been taken
with heart-seizure and incapacitated for about a quarter of an hour.
On Thursday morning, November 23, I was ill, on waking, with a
heart collapse. In spite of my best efforts, I could scarcely hold up
my head or speak. Mrs. Francis Smith, one of my dearest friends,
had come to my rooms to see how I was, and she determined to call
at Bow Street and find out for me if I could not put off going there
till the afternoon. She came back, saying that she had had an
interview with Inspector A——, who had already shown great
kindness to me, and he had said I was not to trouble about the
morning, that it would do quite well if I came in the afternoon. I lay
down on my bed till nearly 2 o’clock, when I felt much better. Then I
went to Bow Street. The woman who did my room came with me
and carried my luggage; she also fetched me milk into the police
station. She knew several of the policeman personally, so she
managed everything very easily. I went on a deputation with Mrs.
Haverfield and Mrs. Mansell-Moulin to Inspector A——, to say that
unless the women could be told on leaving whether they would be
wanted the next day, they would not go away. As this meant finding
cells for all of us—we were 220 women in all—probably we should
have to be put four or five in a cell together; it was speedily
arranged and we were told that night when we should be wanted; I
was one of those who came the following day. I went again that
evening to my mother.
The next morning, Friday, November 24, I woke all right and went
to Bow Street quite happily. Before our trial we were taken down
into the passage next the police court, and put vis-à-vis to the
policemen who had arrested us, as at my first trial. The magistrate
was Sir Albert de Rutzen, who was too old for his work. Miss Lawless
was accused with me. The hammers and stones were shown in
witness against us, and the damage estimated at £3 15s. Mr.
Muskett, the prosecutor, in totalling up my record, mentioned that I
had been to Holloway after a deputation to the House of Commons,
and in Newcastle I was imprisoned for throwing a stone at a motor
car, but he did not mention “Jane Warton” at Liverpool. When I
reminded him that he had left her out, he said testily, “Well, I’m very
glad if I have.” I said it was quite true that I used a hammer and
stones to break windows. I realised that this was the only effective
means of protest left to us by a Government which boasts of
Liberalism and representation where men are concerned, but ignores
the elementary principles of representation where women are
concerned. Votes and riot are the only form of appeal to which this
Government will respond. They refuse us votes, we fall back on riot.
The wrongs they inflict on women are intolerable, and we will no
longer tolerate them—— Here the magistrate interrupted me; he
could not enter into a discussion on the subject, and referred to the
fact that Mr. Asquith had received a deputation last Friday. I said, “I
heard Mr. Asquith say he would do nothing in regard to women.” The
magistrate then advocated peaceful agitation. I answered that this
Government have said they will do absolutely nothing as a
Government, and Mr. Asquith is exactly where he was in 1908; all
our peaceful agitation has been valueless in his eyes. I said that
although we committed the acts alleged, we were not guilty of
crime, our conduct being fully justified by the circumstances of the
case. “I appeal to you, Sir, to vindicate the fundamental laws of
liberty which our country has revered for generations,” and with that
I concluded. Miss Leslie Lawless said that if to fight for one’s liberty
was a crime, she was guilty, but she pleaded not guilty, as that was
the only protest that this Government understood. Our sentence was
one of a fine of 40s. and 37s. 6d. damage each, or fourteen days’
imprisonment—half the sentence that I had received when I went to
the House of Commons, doing absolutely nothing and being mauled
by the police.
 We were not put into the cells, but again taken upstairs to a room
close to the larger one. There was my friend, Adela Smith, with Olive
Schreiner’s friend, Mrs. Purcell, and Mrs. Tudor, of St. Albans. All
these were not among the condemned, but had been let in to see
their friends. Towards half-past five Inspector A—— came and told
me that presently a taxi would be round to take me to Holloway, that
there would be a policeman inside, but that the other two could be
any “fellow criminals” I liked. I at once chose Mrs. Leigh, who had
been condemned to two months’ imprisonment, though she was said
only to have struck a policeman in defence of another woman. I was
immensely proud to take her with me. I also chose Miss Lawless.
The policeman was in plain clothes and very amiable. Miss Lawless
discovered that she had left her purse behind. We went back for it,
and, on arriving at Bow Street, I decided that the constable should
get out with Miss Lawless, put her in charge of another policeman,
then return and mount guard on us. He was delighted to do this.
From the point of view of our safety, of course, nothing could have
been more absurd; we were not in the courtyard of the police-
station, and nothing would have been easier than to open the door
the other side of the pavement and, with the noise of the street,
Mrs. Leigh or I could have escaped. But it was understood all round
that this was not the game, and we waited quietly for the policeman
to return and, finally, Miss Lawless and the purse.
At Holloway all was civility; it was unrecognisable from the first
time I had been there. There were no reception cells for us, but we
were taken at once to our separate cells in D X, where, after a time
the Matron, and afterwards the doctor came to see us. Nothing
could have been more charming than the Matron—another woman
than had been there before. She asked me at once after Miss
Davison; was she coming this time? The Matron had been at
Manchester when the hose-pipe had been played on her. This she
asked before two wardresses, and in a voice of sympathetic
intonation. I said I did not think she was coming this time, but it
would not be long probably before she was in prison again. Then
came Dr. Sullivan. His manner was kind, as it had always been, but I
no longer felt the same towards him since he had fed some of the
prisoners by force. He said at once, after testing my heart, that I
could not stay there, but must go at once to hospital. I said I was
much more comfortable where I was than in the general ward, and
that I could not sleep there. He said he meant to put me in a cell
apart. I was then moved over to the hospital side. There on the
ground floor was the superintendent officer I had known before. I
smiled, but she looked as if she did not recognise me. She went with
me upstairs. “I believe,” I said, as she opened a door, “it is the very
same cell I had before.” “No,” she answered, “the one next door,”
and her reserve, to my great delight, broke down. I unpacked my
flannel sheets, my flannel nightgown, and my long bed-socks, and
made myself ready for the night. It was almost unbelievable to have
so much comfort in a place which before had been the very acme of
discomfort. They brought me a pint mug of milk and a small white
loaf before the night. It was about eight o’clock by the time I got to
bed, but the hours, I supposed, were the same as they had been in
Holloway before, and besides, I was dead tired.
The next day, Saturday, November 25, I felt ill in the morning. The
prison was scarce of food—at least, there were no vegetables; they
gave me bread and butter and a pudding for luncheon. The
Governor came, Dr. Scott, and he was amiability itself, I was only to
take care of myself. Since all was made easy, I stayed in bed that
day.
The girl who was let in to wash my floor was fair-haired, with a
most pleasant and intelligent face. I longed to know about her, but a
wardress stood at the door looking on at her work all the time, and I
did not once catch her eye. On Sunday, November 26, I felt no
better and again stayed in bed. The second doctor, a new man, who
was pleasant in his manner, came to see me. In the morning when I
had been let out to the sink, the little prisoner who washed my floor
met me coming out. My back was turned for a moment; she patted
my shoulder and said, in a tone of voice of utmost comfort, “Cheer
up!” By the time I looked round she was off somewhere else and no
one would have supposed that she had communicated with me.
After that I was determined to get some snatch conversation with
her when she was in my cell. When she washed out that morning, I
said to her—it was always the first thing—“How long have you got?”
“Three years,” was the answer. This greatly surprised me, for
Holloway was not the place for long sentences, but I could not ask
her then, there was not time to tell, only time for bare questions and
answers. I asked, “What was it for?” “Stealing my mother’s skirt,”
she said. This was more startling than ever. Where was the mother’s
skirt one could “steal”? But the wardress looked in and we were
obliged to stop. On another occasion she told me that she had been
very ill on first coming to Holloway, and that was why she had been
kept there. Another time she slipped this notice under the door, and
signalled to me by opening the gas-jet glass from the passage. On
one side of the little torn bit of paper was written, “Z— A—, Boardstil
Institution, Hailsbray”; on the other side, “I shall be glad to hear
from you because I have no friends at all and it will cheer me up.” I
longed to speak to her, but I did not see her again after this. It was
my last morning in prison when she put this paper under the door.
After I came out I, of course, wrote to her, thanked her for her
cheering words to me, asked if I might go and see her, and sent her
a little 3d. book of extracts from my father’s poems. I sent these to
the chaplain at Aylesbury and asked him if he would deliver them.
He sent my letter back, saying that he would not be allowed to give
it, for she had already chosen as her correspondent her
grandmother or some old lady. I do not know anything of her, of her
failings or virtues; I only know that there was no loosening the net
that clung round her so tightly for three years.
On Sunday, November 26, in the afternoon I went out to exercise.
This was indeed a changed world. All of us assembled were walking
about arm in arm, as we liked, in rows facing each other, or round
the ground; some of us went apart in a little side-walk, all talking to
one another, and all, of course, wearing our own clothes. One or two
wardresses were there, but they were smiling all the time and
chatted with us. One of them asked me why I had not come to visit
Holloway. I told her that they would not allow “criminals” to come
back except as prisoners, that I had tried in vain. She said I could
come as someone who visited the cooking places, or something of
that kind. I was afraid I was too well known in Holloway, as I had
paid rather frequent visits to the Governor. I saw and walked with
Mrs. Pethick Lawrence, arm in arm, and nothing that we did caused
any disturbance.
On Monday, November 27, I stayed in bed again, and at about 11
o’clock the doctor came and offered me vegetable soup from
outside, and massage from my masseur-doctor, Mr. May. I said
surely that would not be allowed! He told me that of course in the
ordinary course of things it was not allowed, but, if I wished for it,
he would see what he could do. I refused all these offers, which
were not, so far as I knew, offered to the others. I heard after my
release, how my dear friends had put themselves about to get me all
these things, and how my servant had brought soup to the prison
every day, which she had made. I had a tin of biscuits sent in to me
and some orange sweets. As I was not feeling well, I was unable to
eat these, but I managed to give a good many to the girls who
washed my cell. I only once got a look into the general ward. I saw
Mrs. Mansell-Moullin, Mrs. Mansel and others, but it did not seem to
be the thing for the prisoners from the cells to go into the general
ward. That night Mrs. Mansel came in to see me from there. She and
some others were to be released the next day. She had suffered
from influenza and had a bad time of it while she was in prison. We
had a long talk, and she gave me The Man-made World, by Charlotte
Perkins Gilman, to read, as a wonderful book that had just come out.
She was not allowed to take it out with her. The publisher, Mr. Fisher
Unwin, had kindly sent me the book, but I had not yet had time to
read it. I read it that night and found it all that she had said—a most
remarkable book. It is dedicated to a man, showing that the
woman’s movement has in it nothing, as is sometimes supposed,
against men, but only against the vices of some men. In a chapter
called “Crime and Punishment,” this passage struck me with intense
truth: “Does a child offend? Punish it! Does a woman offend? Punish
her! Does a man offend? Punish him! Does a group offend? Punish
them! ‘What for?’ someone suddenly asks. ‘To make them stop doing
it!’ ‘But they have done it.’ ‘To make them not do it again, then.’ ‘But
they do it again and worse.’ ‘To prevent other people’s doing it, then.’
But it does not prevent them—the crime keeps on. What good is
your punishment to crime? Its base, its prehistoric base, is simply
retaliation.”
On Tuesday, November 28, I felt much better and went out to
exercise in the morning. While there I was summoned to see the
Governor. He told me that my fine had been paid anonymously and
that I was free. Among my friends there is none that I can think of
who would have paid my fine; my state of health, I suppose, after
the forcible feeding, was “dangerous,” and it was thought safest to
pay the fine “officially.” To my great surprise, the superintendent
came with me to my flat. She was very dear but quite “official.” As I
had packed up my things rather quickly, I felt ill and not inclined to
talk much. She told me how very overworked the superintendent
officers had been with the 220 Suffragette prisoners there were this
time, she herself sometimes not getting to bed till one or two in the
morning. She looked very tired and I felt very sorry for her. It
seemed hard that, when they made us prisoners, so much extra
work should fall upon the wardresses. When we reached the Duke’s
Road, I did not like to ask her into my rooms, not knowing who
would be there, so I said good-bye to her, kissed her, and begged
her to take back the taxi at my expense. This, however, she refused
to do; she preferred to go home by omnibus, and we parted at the
front door. I went upstairs and found three of my friends. We were
delighted to see each other, but they soon went away, and I rolled
wearily into bed.
I frequently had to lie up during the winter and spring months that
followed. On May 5, 1912, I had a stroke and my right arm was
paralysed; also, slightly, my right foot and leg. I was taken from my
flat to my sister Emily Lutyen’s house, and for many long months she
and my mother and Dr. Marion Vaughan were kindness itself to me.
From that day to this I have been incapacited for working for the
Women’s Social and Political Union, but I am with them still with my
whole soul.
And what is this which yet comes to us from the prisons? The
torture of the “Cat-and-Mouse” Act and of forcible feeding! Oh! if
only people could know what these things signify! But surely they
must understand that they are barbarous practices such as we have
not tolerated for long in our prisons. “Cat-and-Mouse” Act—what
does it mean? The prisoner does not eat or drink, nothing to pass
the lips; it may be three days, it may be a week, it may be nine
days. Then the prisoner is let out, watched day and night, and taken
back to prison, back to hunger and thirst, till she is again at death’s
door. This they do twice, three times, four times, five times, till life is
all but out. Not yet have the Government admitted that they will
stop the “Cat-and-Mouse” torture short of death itself. And the
forcible feeding—what is that? The only possible excuse for it is that
it prolongs the prisoner’s sentence by so many days, so many
weeks, and that is all. But heed what it is. I have described it exactly
as it was done to me. See what it has meant in the recent case of
Mary Richardson. It took eight wardresses and one man to overcome
her. On two occasions it was said: “Twist her arms—the only way to
unlock them.” They held her feet by pressing in the hollow of her
ankles. Occasionally the doctor pressed her in the chest to hold her
down. He announced that he was going to use the stomach tube. As
he could not get through her teeth, he put his fingers to the
extremity of her jaw, and with his finger-nail deliberately cut her
gum and cheek until her mouth was bleeding badly. He then inserted
the gag and stomach tube, but she was so choked by the process
that he stopped the feeding, and said he would return to the nasal
tube. This is inhuman, like the feeding of a beast—no, of an
insentient thing. Where is the gain? A week or several weeks more
of imprisonment, and you have let in torture to our form of
punishment; yes, and repeated torture, for these prisoners are let
out by the “Cat-and-Mouse” Act, and, on those ghastly terms, the
police will mount guard on them to seize them again if, according to
their judgment, they have regained sufficient fitness.
 And why are these women imprisoned? Because they and many
thousands, or rather several millions, of women with them, have
asked for the vote, but the Government would not give it to them.
For forty-five years women have supported their demand in
Parliament for enfranchisement with ever increasing vigour. Petitions,
processions, meetings and resolutions all over the country were
infinitely greater in number than have been achieved for any other
reform. When the Conciliation Bill was framed, women waited to see
what the Government would do for them; the vote on the second
reading of the Bill, for the second time, was immense. Women
listened to the pledges of the Government and they seemed to hold
out a certainty of the vote. Now, when these promises have all been
broken, women have taken to burning empty houses, railway
stations and stacks, though they have respected life and refrained
from wounding, as men would do for far less a cause. Yes, and they
will burn buildings until they are treated rationally as an equal part
of the human race.
I hear the cry go up from all parts of the country, “How long? How
long?” The time is fully ripe, when will women be represented in
Parliament by the vote, equally with men?

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.

SOME PRESS OPINIONS

“The author has written her book with a broadness of sympathy

that adds dignity and conviction to a document of commendable
frankness. It should serve as a presage of hope and reform for those
who suffer by our present penal system; it also sheds much needed
light on the hidebound officialism that is responsible for what Lady
Constance Lytton has experienced and portrayed. This is, perhaps,
the first time that the inequalities of treatment meted out to the rich
and poor has been so clearly expressed in book form.”
—Athenæum.

“It is the clever and eloquent plea of a remarkable woman.”

—Pall Mall Gazette.

“A deeply impressive work ... holds the attention from the first,
and leaves an impression that is likely to prove indelible ... it is
impossible to read this narrative without being struck by the
sustained heroism that has been exhibited.”
—Daily Telegraph.

“This sincere and illuminating book ... an extremely fine and

sensitive study of an English lady.”
—Westminster Gazette.

“A very moving and remarkable addition to the literature of the

prison.... This unpretending and generous volume is likely to be one
of the classic books of reference in regard to the sufferings of the
revolutionary woman.”
—Daily News.
 “One of the most fascinating books you ever read.”
—Manchester Courier.

“Her story is certainly impressive. As a piece of literature it is

admirable, and as a contribution to our knowledge of what prison life
is and of what its effect upon the individual may be it is important
and valuable.”
—Liverpool Daily Post.

“Its direct and immediate appeal extends far beyond the confine
of any movement, however significant and great. It is a story for all
sorts and all conditions of women and men, irrespective of individual
differences in matters of political and social faith.”
—Votes for Women.

“Constance Lytton is an incarnation of the Christ spirit, if ever

there was one. The story of her deeds—the motive that inspired
them—is worthy of being enshrined in the Sacred Books of the race.”
—Christian Commonwealth.

“... not politics but psychology, and a fluent and brilliant exposition
it is.”
—Observer.

“... life itself, facts lived and suffered within the past year or two,
an autobiography written with the tears and blood of a woman....
Her book is a tragic document which leaves a man sad and
wondering.”
—Graphic.
 A LIST OF
CURRENT FICTION
PUBLISHED BY

WILLIAM HEINEMANN
AT 21 BEDFORD ST., LONDON, W.C.

MR HEINEMANN will always be pleased to send periodically

particulars of his forthcoming publications to any reader who desires
them. In applying please state whether you are interested in works
of Fiction, Memoirs, History, Art, Science, etc.
THE DARK FLOWER
by JOHN GALSWORTHY
“Human emotion at the intensity that is begotten of conflict
insoluble, and not merely of satiable and sated aspiration, is, at
least, the novelist’s pre-occupation in this volume. And, like the old
tragedians, he stands apart from his grim rendering of life,
drawing no moral save that of pity and terror.... One need scarcely
say that with this novel Mr. Galsworthy has added another to his
series of powerful, vivid, and sincere studies of human nature. His
characters stand out with the firmness of life.”
—Daily Telegraph.
Author of
MAN OF PROPERTY
THE ISLAND PHARISEES
THE PATRICIAN
A MOTLEY
COUNTRY HOUSE
FRATERNITY
THE INN OF TRANQUILITY
MOODS, SONGS & DOGGERELS

MARRYING OF HESTER RAINSBROOK

by J. A. REVERMORT
“This novel is permeated not only by real culture, but by genuine
insight into character, and the romance of ‘Hester Rainsbrook’ with
the man whose dark background she redeems is well worth
reading. The minor characters, too, stand out in excellent
perspective.”
—T.P.’s Weekly.
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about testbank and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebooksecure.com