Monthly Archives: December 1912

A Lesson in Tactics

Posted on by Posted in Letters

December 31, 1912, The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, “A Lesson in Tactics”

These two letters, one embedded in an article in The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, the other from Davison to that paper, span the end of 1912 and the beginning of 1913. To the optimistic—if complex—political tactics of Secretary Acland’s call to vote in earnest, not in principle, for woman suffrage, Davison turns a skeptical ear and eye, based on her own calculus that the parliamentary session will likely develop to the disappointment of the suffragists, whose cause seems always to be postponed.

“A Lesson in Tactics” –story

Mr. F. D. Acland, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, has sent the following letter on the subject of woman suffrage to the January number of the ‘Englishwoman’:–

‘It is rumoured that the anti-suffragists in the House of Commons do not intend to divide the House upon Sir Edward Grey’s amendment to omit the word “male.” If there be such an intention, and it be carried out, anti-suffragists will, no doubt, explain that they regard this amendment not as a positive but a permissive one. They would say, “All right. If the House wants an opportunity to decide for or against particular plans for woman suffrage we have no objection. Let’s get to practical business. We don’t want to fight on preliminaries.”

‘Now what is our position in view of this possible attitude? Let us take honest account, both of our strength and our weakness. Three points are to be noted. We cannot force a division on Sir Edward Grey’s amendment. So we cannot maintain that the amendment is more than an enabling one without agreeing to the contention of the “Times” that it is a women-hood suffrage amendment. At the most a vote in its favour is a declaratory vote on the principle. But we are not out this time for a vote on principle but on practice. It has been the weakness of our cause in the House of commons hitherto that we have had votes ad nauseum on the principle of woman suffrage, but no vote on carrying the principle into actual practice. Essentially it does not matter to us at this juncture whether or not we obtain another vote on the bare principle. In [the fact?] fact we should gain by carrying out Sir Edward Grey’s amendment without a division is simply a demonstration that the “antis’ dare not challenge a division in the House on the principle. They rely now solely on the hope of splitting up our forces and beating us in detail on the question of precisely what classes of women, and how many women are to be enfranchised. Personally I cannot complain of this attitude. I do not think it is a discreditable trick or manoeuvre, but it is a direct challenge to us. It narrows the issue. It is a direct challenge to suffragists of every shade of political opinion to concentrate on that amendment which by consent of all parties is known to have the best chance—the Dickinson amendment.

‘Incidentally this reported manoeuvre of the “antis” cuts the ground from under the feet of some half-hearted supporters of ours, who have been thinking they might save their face by voting for Sir E. Grey’s amendment, and subsequently only for one or other of the amendments which can not be carried, and not for Mr. Dickinson’s which can. There are, we know, a great many suffragists in the House who would prefer either a wider or a narrower franchise for women than that to be proposed by Mr. Dickinson. To all of those who are in earnest we must appeal once again, and can do so with renewed force in view of these latest rumours of anti-suffragist intentions to vote solid for the amendment standing half-way between the other two, which respectively represent the ideal of the Democratic and the Conservative wings. Let every suffragist member of Parliament realise that he is a unit in a majority so undeniable that the anti-suffragist minority fear to meet it. And let him take the field this January armed, not with the dummy rifles of good intentions and votes on principle, but with the powder and shot of firm determination to see the women citizens of his country, married and unmarried, represented in the next Parliament. Let adultists follow Mr. Henderson, let Conservatives follow Lord Robert Cecil into the lobby on the division on Mr. Dickinson’s amendment, and we have nothing to fear from our declared opponents.

To which Davison replies, using the same expression, “when pigs fly” that she used in her previous correspondence in The North Mail:

January 1, 1913, To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Chronicle

Sir, of what use is Mr. F.D. Acland’s ingenuous letter sent to the January number of the ‘Englishwoman’ as to the duty of suffragists to support the Dickinson amendment to the Reform Bill? It’s common knowledge to anyone who has an ounce of political sense that any woman suffrage amendments to the Bill have as much chance of being brought forward as that ‘pigs might fly,’ for something has to go by the board in this tremendously full session. At first there was a whisper of Welsh Disestablishment going, but owing to the immediately militant attitude of the Welsh members of the Cabinet and the House of Commons, that was soon disavowed. Then there was a rumour of the Trade Union Bill being dropped. Labour members (who could not bring themselves to oppose the Government for women’s sake) pretty soon rectified that! What, then, remains? Why, of course the adult suffrage proposition, which none want and which was only brought forward to checkmate the women’s cause. All that will be taken is a Plural Voting Bill! And if the impossible should happen, and the amendments ever came forward, has not the fate of the Conciliation Bill and Mr. Snowden’s amendment to the Home Rule Bill shown clearly enough what will happen? A proper Government measure for woman suffrage is the only right and dignified thing—Yours, Etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, Dec. 31

Murderous Militants

Posted on by Posted in Letters

An article in The North Mail on December 18, 1912 evoked a series of responses, among which Emily Davison’s in turn stimulated the vituperative response of “Henpecked.” At issue was the militant tactic of ringing fire alarms to summon fire engines to non-existent fires. In her first letter Davison defends the practice as comparatively humane, in light of male warfare, and as a tactic to leverage the government out of their stalling tactics. She concludes with a quote from the Gospel of Matthew, 11:15, where Jesus reproves the citizens of cities he has visited for not repenting and changing their ways. In her second letter she seems to loose control and lapses into a kind of stilted insult roughly equivalent to “keep your shirt on,” the world is not about to end, after having called attention once more to the government’s cat and mouse torture of two women who have been released temporarily from prison in order to regain their strength before being re-incarcerated. The full exchange follows:

Article in The North Mail, Dec. 18, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

There will be very widespread satisfaction this morning at the news that one at least of the women who have resorted to giving bogus fire alarms has been captured by the police. Of all the outrages to which civilized society has been subjected by the militant suffragettes, the wanton ringing of the fire alarm bells is probably the most dangerous. In yesterday’s case, the female Anarchist who broke the glass and gave the false alarm succeeded in hurrying five engines to the scene of the supposed fire. One shudders at the bare contemplation of what this might mean if an actual fire, in which human life was in peril, should have broken out in the same district at the same time. Compared with such cruel and abominable attacks on society as these, the attempts to blow up theatres are comparatively trivial, while the letter-box fiends are merely foolish. It is sincerely to be hoped that the authorities will not be influenced by any mistaken chivalry in punishing miscreants found guilty of such callous criminality. In dealing with the militant peril, we are bound, sooner or later, to be driven to defend ourselves irrespective of the sex of the offenders. This seems to be the point at which it would be wise to begin.

Emily Davison responded in “Other People’s Opinions: Topics and Affairs Discussed by ‘North Mail Readers’” December 19, 1912, “Murderous Militants”:

Sir, in your issue to-day there is a hysterical and amusing leader on ‘Murderous Militants,’ in which you denounce the latest manifestation of militancy. As each new occasion arises, fresh epithets of vituperation have to be found if possible to denounce the act till perhaps the Press and Parliament will at last grasp the sovereign truth that it is ‘deeds, not words’ that are needed, and ‘the only way’ to put an end to these manifestations of unrest and discontent is to remove the cause of the grievance, a fact which the Government realized clearly enough in the case of the recently ended strike in Newcastle, and which the combatants of Central Europe are endeavoring to carry out in London to-day.

Anything else is hysteria and waste of breath! Thus, for example, in your desire to pile on the agony in the matter of abuse, you describe ‘the wanton ringing of the fire alarm bells’ as ‘the most dangerous’ of all the methods so far adopted not even excepting, ‘attempts to blow up (sic!) theatres,’ because, forsooth, a genuine alarm of fire might have taken place in the same neighbourhood! What would then have happened? Why, the engines would have been ready and able to reach the scene of action a little more promptly, and those in danger might have had reason to bless the militants!

How much more humane is our way of warfare than that of men as exemplified in strikes and the Balkan war! It is, perhaps, too humane for those who only understand the language of inhumanity, but it is none the less determined! He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!– Yours, etc.

Emily Wilding DAVISON
Longhorsley, Dec. 18, 1912

This letter evoked the following insulting response in “Other People’s Opinions” on Friday, Dec. 20, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

Sir, I am afraid you must accept the criticism of Miss E.W. Davison on your leader on ‘Murderous Militants,’ which she describes as hysterical. She having had a large experience in the various degrees of hysteria, even up to acute forms of suicidal and homicidal mania, there can be no appeal against such an authoritative decision, and your only alternative is to seek a more level-headed leader writer.

Her attempt to minimize the serious consequences of calling out fire engines on fruitless errands is typical of the logic displayed by Mrs. Pankhurst and Co. How on earth would an engine be able to reach the scene of action a little more promptly if it happened to be a mile or two away when the real alarm was given?

Her Biblical quotation is very apt. We have ears and we can hear right enough, but oh! What rot we are deafened with—Yours, etc.

“HENPECKED”
Gateshead, Dec. 19, 1912

Prompting this response from Davson in “Other People’s Opinions” December 21, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

Sir, –The anonymous letter in your columns to-day signed suggestively enough, ‘Henpecked,’ clearly emanates from just such a brave and chivalrous one as those who, according to another paragraph in your issue, have once more seized two frail women, with whom they have been playing a cat and mouse game for the past three months, after having tortured them by forcible feeding for one or two months before that, so that both have been at death’s door.

fBut with regard to the terrible bogeys which are exercising your unfortunate correspondent, and apparently leading him into the wildest flights of imagination, they cannot fail to remind us of the salutary douche applied to similar visionaries that ‘pigs might fly!’ The prospect is terrific and awe-inspiring, but the contingency is as yet remote enough for us to urge your ‘preux chevalier’ to keep his hirsute growth firmly fixed to the upper part of his cranium! Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, Dec. 20, 1912

Davison’s Response, December 15, 1912, To the Editor of the Morpeth Herald

Posted on by Posted in Letters

Davison’s Response, December 15, 1912, To the Editor of The Morpeth Herald, “The Woman Suffrage Question”

This is the final letter in the Davison-Knox exchange, where she pulls no punches.

Sir, –Mr. Knox is just as illogical as most of his sex when, after stoutly affirming that he is of the same opinion still, he, curiously enough, asserts that he fails ‘to see the reasonableness of rejecting good evidence that was ever vouchsafed to men’ (sic!), and yet himself rejects the evidence of the great anthropologist Broca (not Brocus, as he writes).

The same criticism rises to our minds when Mr. Knox argues that ‘if women are so well equipped as men in the size of brains, the average weight of a group of women ought to be equal to the average group of men’ (sic!). In this sentence his meaning and language are terribly obscure, but his argument seems to infer that he considers that brains are co-extensive with height! Is Mr. Knox so ignorant that he does not know that some of the cleverest men (and women) in the world have been the smallest in height?

In spite of all his elaborate disclaimers of the value of medical statistics, Mr. Knox seems to have been obliged to grub hard among them, and has then made the same error of allowing himself to be led off the track. As it is necessary to bring him back to the point at issue, I must briefly lay down the results arrived at: –(a) Size of brain is no proof of capacity of brain, amply shown by the fact that some of the largest and heaviest brains belong to lunatics: (b) in comparing brains, it is necessary to take all facts into consideration together: (c) quality is more important than quantity.

Now argument (a) at once takes the force out of Mr. Knox’s long list of statistics as to the greater brain weight of men, for it may, indeed, only point to their greater lunacy! Argument (b) also puts a tremendous discount on Mr. Knox’s statistics, because he has not co-ordinated all his facts: he has only taken brains relatively (1) as to height of body, (2) as to weight of body. That he makes this error wittingly is proved by his own summary of the matter, in asserting that ‘when women and men are of equal height or equal weight, the men have something like 10 per cent. More brains than the women.’ But this gives his case completely away, for if he will take as much trouble to verify his facts as he has apparently taken to get these statistics, which, as usual in anti-suffragist arguments, are only partial and misleading, he will find that a man and woman of the same height of body are never of the same weight of body; and, per contra, a man and woman of the same weight are rarely, if ever, of the same height. But it is this meretricious form of argument of which anti-suffragists are almost always guilty, forgetting that the wits of women are far too nimble to be deceived by it. And it is this fact which is constantly being attested to to-day which displays the quality of women’s brains and reasoning capacity, and which proves my arguments.

dMr. Knox, it is true, has ‘endeavoured’ very hard indeed to prove ‘the quality in the male to be superior to that of the female,’ but I am afraid that he has not managed to do it, for again and again he has allowed himself to be led away into ‘terminological inexactitudes,’ as, for example, when he asserts that reason and will are identical: and, again, when he goes out of his way to state that ‘no amount of female education can overcome the natural and fundamental distinctions of sex.’ All the way through this controversy it is I who have reminded him that ‘men are men and women are women,’ and that, therefore, it is the men who all along the line have been trying to overcome the natural and fundamental distinctions of sex by forcing women into one groove. What we suffragists are fighting for is that women, qua women, should have the same opportunities and facilities to develop that men have, qua men. The fact that Mr. Knox and his like ignore is that women are not at present free to develop as women, and it is that which is wrong. Whilst confessing that they do not understand women, men impose their ideals or limitations on women, and therefore women are as far from being what they might be naturally, as is the domestic animal from its wild progenitor. And that brings me back to the point with which I started, namely, that men will not acknowledge the common humanity of man and woman: and still keep up the error that ‘man has a sex, but woman is a sex,– [no final quotation mark]
Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley

Released Suffragist’s Explanation

Posted on by Posted in Letters

December 10, 1912, to the Editor of The Aberdeen Daily Journal, “Released Suffragist’s Explanation”

During the course of her public exchange with Mr. Knox, Davison travelled to Aberdeen where she was arrested for mistakenly horse-whipping a Baptist minister whom she mistook for Lloyd George, who was in the city at the same time. Employing a suffragette custom, she provided a false name to the authorities, saying she was Mary Brown, a pseudonym which was actually her close friend Mary Leigh’s married name. Her true identity is recorded on the arrest record, and she was apparently freed by a friend or family member’s paying her fine. The Davisons had close ties with the Aberdeen area, and Emily had close friends in the area with whom she must have been staying, as she gives their address as her current address in her signature. Her liberty was not exactly her choice and she wrote to several news papers protesting what she seems to have felt was a kind of “letting down the side” in being released from prison. The letter below, sent to The Aberdeen Daily Journal was also sent to The Scotsman on December 10, printed on December 12, and to The Aberdeen Free Press on December 9, printed on December 10.

Sir, — A report is being spread as to my release that my fine was paid ‘anonymously, probably by a ‘suffragist sympathizer.’ I entirely deny this! No suffragist would have done such a thing, as my feelings in the matter would have been known and respected! Moreover, when I was told of my release at 6.30 this morning, I was solemnly assured that an order for my release had come, otherwise I should have refused to leave the prison. This is a trumped-up excuse to cover a fine reality! The truth is that bonnie Scotland will not adopt the barbarity of forcible feeding!! All honour to her! Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
(B.A., Lon. And Oxford Final Honour School)
Ryedale, Rubislaw Don South,
Aberdeen, December 9, 1912