The last letter in Emily Davison’s scrapbook collection was written in response to a story in The Newcastle Daily Chronicle about Emmeline Pankhurst’s declaring an armistice while the amendments to the Franchise Bill—which gave Secretary Acland such hope—are all defeated. The logic of the article is a bit twisted, contending as it does that if militant violence is good some of the time it must be good all of the time; one can only suppose that Davison’s and others’ explanations about the tactical and strategic use of militancy by the WSPU fell on some deaf ears.

story:
It is announced that Mrs. Pankhurst has declared an armistice, and that there is to be no more militancy until the last of the amendments to the Franchise Bill has been defeated. We may pass over the confession, or the assumption, of the militant leader that she is able to control the action of the militants, and proceed to say that the armistice must inevitably lead the ‘enemy’ to see in it an admission of the folly of the violent tactics. If militancy is a good thing at any time it is a good thing all the time, and if it is a bad thing between the present date and the consideration of the last amendment it is surely a bad thing at any time. For ourselves we have no doubt that the cessation of hostilities will enhance the prospect of some form of women’s suffrage finding its way into the Bill, but we must say the prospect would have been brighter still had not a good cause been injured in the past by its too ardent and too indiscreet friends.

Emily Davison’s response January, 17, 1913, To the Editor, The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, “The Women’s Armistice”

Sir, Among your leaderettes to-day is one on ‘The Women’s Armistice’ in which you criticize the W.S.P.U. for proclaiming a truce to militancy till the last of the amendments to the Franchise Bill has been defeated. This you say is an admission of the folly of the violent tactics, for “if militancy is a good thing at any time it is all the time, and if it is a bad thing between the present date and the consideration of the last amendment it is surely a bad thing at any time.”

Will you allow me to point out that this is bad reasoning? Every good general knows that a charge is good at one time, guerilla warfare at another, and at other times it is well to use Fabian tactics. Policy which would be wise at one point of a campaign may be quite mistaken at another and it is the mark of a good general to know the times and seasons. Thus all the way through the years 1910 and 1911, when the conciliation Bill had a good chance of becoming law if given fair play, we kept a truce from militancy, doing only so-called constitutional work; but we at once resumed militancy when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed their hand in November,1911. Now we are prepared to wait for a few days for several reasons: (a) Our working-women’s deputation may be able to affect something; (b) We are willing, like all others, to bring every constitutional pressure to bear; (c) If the amendments are each and severally killed, it will be proof complete of the trickery and treachery on the part of the House of Commons, the members of which will then not have the excuses of quoting militancy to cloak their own wickedness. There is a time to wait and a time to work. But if what we fear happens, and the amendments receive one by one their coup de grace, there will be no person in the whole of this kingdom who will dare to question the inevitability and justice of militancy.
Yours, Etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, Jan 17

Editor’s note after letter:
[We did not say ‘this is an admission of the folly,’ etc. We said, ‘The armistice must inevitably lead the “enemy” to see in it an admission of the folly’ etc.—rather a different thing. Ed. N.D.C.J.]

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

Another of Davison’s ironic responses, more frequent in the fall of 1912 than

at any other period of her scrapbook letters.

Sir, –Your correspondent, W.E.L., is evidently not blessed with the saving

grace of humour, and we must, of course, shed the soothing balm of pity on

his wounded spirit! Alas! poor Yorick! That the days have departed when

the ‘master’ of the house no longer finds that humble bowing to his sway over

which ‘W.E.L.’ fondly cries Ichabod, and when he, in his counsels of despair,

refers feelingly to the only power left to him—that of the tying of the purse-

strings! Yet even in this threnody we find a gleam of hope in the free and frank

acknowledgment by our elegist that man, noble beast, is to be reached through

the senses! An excellent testimonial to the truth that ‘cold logic’ is insufficient as

a lever, and that he must be led to the paths of sweet reason by object-lessons,

which are the more efficacious as they are the more vivid!—Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Oct. 10

The same day the letter above appeared in The Morpeth Herald, the letter below

own strong prose.

Sir,–The letter in your issue to-day (and last night) signed “Danallis” shows the

most extraordinary conception of the value of the individual, worthy only of ante-

Reform days, when the workingman of town and country was looked upon as a

selfish and dangerous scum of the earth, because he was so presumptuous as to

think he had a right to work and a right to live! It is true that nowadays he has not

quite established either claim, but nobody at any rate dares to term him “scum”!

Such is the value of the vote!

Your brilliant correspondent evidently consults neither statistics nor

blatant facts in asserting that the single working woman “lives only for herself.”

He apparently blinds himself to the common knowledge that nowadays the

breadwinner for father, mother, brothers and sisters is only too often the single

woman, whom he beatifically curses. He further ignores the fact that, even if

not so encumbered, the single woman has to support herself because her male

relatives set her a far more blatant example of selfishness in that they tell her to

pay up, sweat and shut up, which curiously enough, she is no longer willing to do!

Hence when she expresses her opinion of their conduct in no measured terms by

weapons even more trenchant than her tongue, it is no wonder if “Danallis” and

his like smart and fume a little. There is no such roarer as your Braggadoccio [braggart]

when he is tenderly tickled with the point of the rapier! –Yours, etc.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Oct. 3 [1912]