August 21, 1912, Article from The Newcastle Evening Chronicle,“Suffragists
Tactics” ;“Critical Struggle in the Autumn”; “Militants and the Reform Bill”
During the summer and autumn of 1912 Emily Davison was essentially based in the
Northeast, although, as later letters show, she travelled for several weeks of that time
to various parts of Britain. While she was recuperating, she was characteristically
active, pursuing her goal of contradicting factual errors that appeared in the press,
as well as mistaken imputations of militant motives and strategic goals. The two
texts below, the first, a clipping from the Newcastle Evening Chronicle of August
21, 1912 of an article on suffragists tactics written by one “P.W.W.”, and the second,
Davison’s letter in reply to the story, indicate the complex impasse the militants, the
constitutionalists, and the government had reached at that point. Davison’s reply
frames the situation within the struggle for Irish Home Rule, whose leaders were wary
of any alliance that might hinder the achievement of their goals.
The Parliamentary Correspondent of the ‘Daily News and Leader’ writes:
Although the Committee Stage of the Reform Bill is not expected until January,
or thereabouts, the months of September and October will be fully occupied
with activity for and against women’s suffrage. All parties recognize that a
most critical struggle of profound importance for the whole future of politics,
will then commence. The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies has
made arrangements to approach members of Parliament, irrespective of party,
by means of deputations, which will begin in September and continue far into
October until the investigation is complete. During the threatened disturbances
in Ulster and the excitement which is likely to attend the introduction of a time-
table on Home Rule, there will be steadily proceeding outside Parliament a
mobilization of the forces which make for women’s enfranchisement. In fact the
situation is even now quietly developing.
There is at the moment much speculation as to the strategy which,
under these altered circumstances, will be pursued by the militants. The
Women’s Freedom League, which is associated with the name of Mrs. Despard,
has frankly adopted the view that the case for the vote is now, as it were,
actually ‘sub judice,’ that a decision upon it cannot be evaded by the High
Court of Parliament, and that at this particular period, therefore, militancy is not
needed.
In the case of the Women’s Social and Political Union there is, indeed, a
lull due to the recess, but it is believed, doubtless with excellent reason, that the
old campaign will be resumed in a few weeks’ time with all the unpleasant
consequences of arrest and imprisonment. There is undoubtedly a strong
conviction that further attacks on Ministers and further disorder in and around
Parliament Square will retard rather than accelerate the obtaining of final
pledges. These troubles, coming when Home Rule is on the anvil, are held to
be particularly unfortunate in their effects upon Nationalist opinion. There is the
further fear lest the new outbreak of militancy, though carefully organized in
advance, may stimulate some of the less responsible extremists to deplorable
acts.
The nation is fully aware of the fact that a number of women are ready at
any time to undergo sufferings out of devotion to the cause of their
enfranchisement, and that their methods of necessity bring them into acute
conflict with the law. The nation also realizes that the matter has now got to be
decided one way or the other, and it is surely due to the nation that the whole
case should be summed up afresh in all its bearings by the women who, whether
militant or non-militant, have studied it most closely. Public opinion is neither so
unreasonable nor so unimportant as perhaps some militants imagine. People
will argue not on the merits of the suffrage, but about hatchet throwing and
theatre burning. Moreover, there will be the suspicion—and in politics suspicion
plays an important part—that the object of militancy is not so much to get the
suffrage as to break the Government.
August 23, 1912, To the Editor of The Newcastle Evening Chronicle, Emily
Davison’s Response
“Suffragist Tactics”
Sir, –In your last night’s issue you quote some very interesting paragraphs from
the Parliamentary correspondent of the ‘Daily News and Leader’ on ‘Suffragist
Tactics.’ How greatly the present position of women suffrage is due to militancy
is shown very clearly: — (a) by the fact that ‘P.W.W.’ thinks it worth his while
in between two portions of the Parliamentary Session to devote quite a large
amount of space and time to the questions; (b) by the fact that no less than half
that space is devoted to considering the attitude of the genuine militants, while
part of the remaining space goes to another body, which may become militant.
In ‘P.W.W.’s’ conception of the W.S.P.U. position, he makes several
mistakes, which I should be glad to show up. First of all, whilst acknowledging
that militancy is inevitable with the reopening of the session, he declares: ‘These
troubles, coming when Home Rule is on the anvil, are held to be particularly
unfortunate in their effects upon Nationalist opinion.’ This is to say that militancy
may antagonize the Irish party to us. There is no fear of this. The Nationalists
are far too anxious as to the safety of their beloved Home Rule to give support in
any case to votes for women, which, if it were rendered secure by their support,
would inevitably take time and attention from their own cynosure. That is, of
course, why Mr. Redmond’s14 Company killed the Conciliation Bill, and why they
are certain, whether we please them or no, to oppose any Woman Suffrage Bill
unless it be introduced as a Government measure.
Then, after acknowledging in a quite perspicacious way that the devotion
of the militants is undeniable, and actually acknowledging that ‘the matter has
now got to be decided one way or the other,’ two completely opposed statements
are made. They are as follows: — ‘Public opinion is neither so unreasonable nor
so unimportant as, perhaps some militants imagine, People will argue not on the
merits of the suffrage, but about hatchet-throwing and theatre-burning.’ Several
comments can be made on this, but the most obvious is to ask how it is possible
to reconcile the statement that public opinion is reasonable with an idea that it
cannot see ‘the wood for the trees,’ or the suffrage for its present natural
manifestations. It seems to me that the boot is on the other foot, and it
is ‘P.W.W.’ who is belittling public opinion, which, let me assure him we fully
recognize as the thing which counts, and which we have always tried to educate
and win.
Lastly, the old bogey is raised that we are opposed to the Liberals as
such. Once more let me repeat that we are out to make the Liberals act up to
their principles, just as the reformers in 1866 tried to save the fiasco, which the
obstinacy of the Whigs rendered inevitable of allowing Disraeli to enjoy ‘dishing’
the Whigs.—Yours, etc.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, August 22, 1912