Author Archives: Emily Davison

Property v. Human Life

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 15, 1911, To The Editor of The Sunday Chronicle, “Property v. Human Life”

This letter, written at virtually the same time as the one above, shows how Davison, like

other suffragists, accepted that men and women’s perspectives on life were fundamentally

different. A state which does not recognize and cherish both perspectives puts itself at risk.

Sir, — The letter which you published in your last Sunday’s issue by ‘Alice Bain’ shows

a humane comprehension, which is apparently lacking in ‘Hubert’ and illustrates well a

fact which suffragists are always preaching, namely, that even if the Conciliation Bill will

enfranchise mainly widows and spinsters, whilst clearly asserting that marriage, qua

marriage, is not to act as a bar to the franchise if the given conditions are fulfilled, yet, even

so, the interests of women would be better safe-guarded by them than by men, however

well intentioned.

The real gist of the matter is that men think more highly of property than of person.

Our law courts afford an endless vista of this truism. Now, woman’s tendency is to think

more of human life, as is only natural, for she is the gates of life. That is where woman’s

influence in the State is absolutely indispensable, and that is the fact which Miss Bain’s

letter brings clearly to the thinking mind. Votes for Women is the salvation of the nation.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, London, W.C.

Liberal Measures Affecting the Working Classes

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 13, 1911, To the Editor of The Times, “Liberal Measures Affecting the Working

Classes”

The “intrusion” of legislation into social and domestic space that resulted from the various

reforms of the later nineteenth and earlier twentieth century in England became an argument

for woman suffrage. Here, the presence of children in public houses becomes the center of

an argument in favor of the social benefits of woman suffrage in New Zealand, where female

drunkenness has decreased since the enfranchisement of women, and the suffragist argument

that women’s perspectives on social problems expressed through their votes will yield better

legislation.

Sir, –The letter which you publish in your columns to-day, signed, ‘A Working Woman,’

forms a strong prima facie argument for the need of woman’s point of view in the State

to-day. Legislation, especially under Liberal administration, is tending to become more

and more domestic and social in trend. Here is a case where it is deliberately interfering

with the relations of parent and child. As Mr. Chesterton put it at the Queen’s Hall the

other night, an immense step would have been taken in the direction of social reform if

all those women who entered a public-house refused point-blank to leave their children

outside. Such a situation would undoubtedly have arisen if the women had possessed a

feeling that they were responsible citizens of their country. But, being in their present

irresponsible position, they accept the status quo as inevitable. Undoubtedly the drink

problem is a terrible one, but this is not the way to solve it—at the expense of the children.

If women had had the voice in national affairs which they demand, such harmful and

sentimental tinkering as this would not have taken place. For a wiser example let us look

to New Zealand, where women have had the vote since 1893, and where the Licensing Act

of 1908 has got well to grips with this problem, for the average of convictions of women for

drunkenness per 1,000 has been steadily lowered from 2.51 to 1.68. Your working woman

correspondent, having more sense upon such a matter as this than a whole male Cabinet,

suggests that while public-houses exist under their present condition the only feasible

alternatives are to let the children in or to force the public-houses to provide decent

nurseries for the children. That the innocent should suffer for the guilty is unpardonable.

But it will happen so long as the State is one-sided in view.

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, W.C., Oct. 12

October 10, 1911, to The Editor of the Daily Chronicle

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 10, 1911, to The Editor of The Daily Chronicle

A brief and trenchant rebuttal to an “anti” whose argument against woman suffrage reveals

class anxiety typical of the time. Woman suffrage was seen as the opening of universal

suffrage, a vote for every man and woman would mean a change in politics and likely

in government. Davison deploys dates and numbers to demonstrate the illogic of her

“opponent’s” argument, and to lay bare its roots. The second paragraph of this short letter is

a succinct, pithy analogy. Davison wrote before the feminist movement of the mid-twentieth

century would render the use of masculine pronouns in such an analogy “sexist.”

Among your correspondence to-day you publish a letter from “A Woman of

Property,” who writes against woman suffrage. This lady brings up the favourite anti-

Suffragist red herring that votes for a million women mean votes for all women and all

men. But on what possible grounds of logic do anti-Suffragists base this contention? Votes

given to one million working men in 1867, and votes to another two million in 1884, have

not yet led to votes for all working men. Adult suffrage is only as yet an academic question.

The only basis on which anti-Suffragists could make such a contention would be that they

thought a million women were cleverer than 7 ½ million men voters.

Your correspondent also asserts that women do get value for paying taxes, in

protection and other ways. May I put the case in a parable? Women’s position in this

matter is analogous to that of a person who, instead of being free to buy what he wants

where and when he likes, is forced to buy in one shop only, even though neither the price,

the service, nor the goods satisfy him. But of course, he who pays the piper is in his rights

to call the tune.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, W.C., Oct. 9

Pit-Brow Women

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “Pit-Brow Women” ([33.])

In this letter Davison responds to a correspondent whose opinions reflect the complicated

range of attitudes toward women, class, and autonomy which spawned a genre of social

criticism ostensibly directed to “protecting” women from exploitation. Familiar with such

arguments, Davison hits back in her typical second-paragraph fashion, pointing out that no

one seems to worry about the women who have to lug pails of water for men to wash after

leaving their mine shifts. A trades unions’ struggle for showers and changing facilities at

the mine heads was going on at the same time as this exchange occurred. The second half of

the letter addresses an equally complicated range of attitudes within the suffrage movement

about its priorities and proper focus—-the vote, or support of labour. Davison makes clear

here, once again, that for her the two were inevitably and directly connected.

Sir,–The action of the Miners’ Federation with regard to women’s labour at the pit brow

only affords further proof, if any were required, of the necessity of women having direct

representation. These men, on the specious plea of sentimentalism, assume their right

to interfere in women’s labour, or, as Mr. Masterman put it so well at the Home Office on

August 3,”the argument was unanswerable that if they had an occupation for women which

was acknowledge to be healthy and not dangerous to their limbs or their morals a men’s

Parliament selected by men had no right to prevent that occupation.”

Mr. Smillie, the advocate of spurious sentimentalism, says that he has seen women

twisted nearly double at the work below-ground. Such statements go directly counter to

the picture drawn by the women themselves at the deputations and also at the recent

demonstration in Manchester. Mr. Smillie and his like, while making such meretricious

appeals as these, do not seem to hesitate to go on wishing that miners’ wives and

womenkind should have to stagger about with heavy pails of water for their menfolk,

rather than agree to legislation which would allow them to get cleansed at the pits

themselves.

Further, when Mr. Smillie accuses “suffragettes” of acting unfairly by taking up the

women’s cause he has got his facts all wrong. The agitation arose quite naturally and

spontaneously among the women themselves, supported by the public-spirited Mayor and

Mayoress of Wigan, who, I submit, knew a good deal more about the facts of the case than

Mr. Smillie or any other delegate of the men. It was not till the pit-brow deputation had

actually arrived in London that anything was done by the W.S.P.U., but on the news of that

event, Miss Annie Kenny, the ex-factory girl, especially hurried along to support her fellow-

workers at Westminster, which she could do so well, as she knew the condition of factory

girls’ work. After that it is true the suffragist societies supported the women might and

main, and were of course right to do so. If they had not done so those very sentimental

gentlemen would have been the first to say that they were neglecting their duty as

women’s advocates. But the agitation began, as it was right and wise, among the women

themselves. It is a strong prima facie case for the vote, as Sir Frederick Banbury put it in

the Committee which passed the iniquitous amendment. –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, London, W.C., October 5

Suffragette Survivals

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 4, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser, “Suffragette Survivals”

Invoking the trope of Rip Van Winkle to characterize the ignorance of the writer of

“Suffragette Survivals,” Davison does not contradict his immediate charges about the desire

of the WSPU to use violence to highlight the injustices under which women live. She proceeds

to offer a classic defense of action, rather than passive acceptance, citing the axiom that

resistance to tyrants is obedience to God, a concept which flourished during the Civil War

years of the seventeenth century and found expression in the American Revolution. The

phrase, frequently invoked in Suffragette speeches and writing, is popularly associated with

Thomas Jefferson.

Sir, –The writer of your leader to-day header “Suffragette Survivals” must surely be a

modern Rip Van Winkle, who has been asleep during the past four of five years. Because

in your paper you have a report of some unfortunate lady who had once upon a time been

a militant Suffragette, and has now apparently turned her back upon the movement, you

have seized the opportunity to pour the vials of your wrath upon Suffragettes in general.

You say that the lessons that this woman has not forgotten from her previous actions are:–

(1)—that attention must be called to distress or grievance by violence, instead of appealing

to the proper institutions; (2) that the demonstration must be violent and calculated

to cause inconvenience to the public. May I be allowed, however, to set Rip Van Winkle

right? It is perfectly true that the right way to get grievances redressed is to appeal to the

institutions appointed for that purpose. But what is to be done if the appointed institutions

fail to take notice of the grievance, although reiterated often and strongly during, say, 50

years? Is it right to continue to sit down under the grievance? Is it not indeed criminal and

cowardly? It is an axiom of politics that those who accept tyranny are worthy of tyranny,

and further that rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God! So much for your first

lesson.

With regard to the second, it is the inevitable conclusion of the lessons of history.

No reform was ever won in this country without a very great deal of effort. It is impossible

to avoid remarking that in the case of the women’s agitation the violence done so far has

been mild compared to the men’s agitation in past days, especially in 1832 , 1867, and

during this strike year of 1911, and the resulting inconvenience has been suffered by the

women themselves and not the public, as in the men’s cases. In the case of this poor

woman, too, the public seems not to have been troubled at all, as according to the accounts

of the incident, after breaking the windows she went to Cannon-row [police station] and

delivered herself up.

Having indulged in a tirade against the deputations to Parliament-square, which

apparently your Rip Van Winkle does not know have been so conducted as to come strictly

within the meaning of the law, by avoiding the character of a procession and by consisting

of separate detachments of less than 13, the leader next attacks the action of Miss Clemence

Housman in refusing to pay her Inhabited House Duty on the strictly constitutional

ground that taxation without representation is legalized robbery. Rip Van Winkle shows

that he is still too sleepy to talk common sense when he remarks that “it did not seem to

strike her that the tax in question was imposed on her by a higher power than her own

individuality.” Yet it is now established and has been the theory for centuries that it is “the

people” who, by the voice of their representatives, consent to their own taxation. She,

therefore, in logic is part of “the higher power” herself. The point that is now being

rammed home by the political descendants of John Hampden is that women are “people”

as well as men, and until their consent is given they refuse to be taxed. It is the British

nation to-day which has evidently to be taught logic.

The only logical grounds on which the nation can refuse votes to women is that they

do not require them to pay taxes.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, Oct. 2

Modern Marriage

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 30, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser, “Modern Marriage”

Davison’s conviction that the “present” position of women is an historical anomaly owing

to an incomplete transition from a feudal to a more modern system of laws underlies her

conviction that the franchise will have a direct, beneficial effect on women’s position in the

laws of England and in their households. She asks for equality and “fair play” rather than

favoritism or patronizing deference. The same letter was sent and published under the

heading “Wages for Wives” in the Daily Express on September 30, 1911.

Sir,– In your columns to-day you deal with the question of the position of the wife with

regard to the family income, apropos of the remarks made by Yorkshire women Liberals.

The present position of the wife in the matter is entirely unsatisfactory. But the idea of a

wife receiving ‘wages’ is of course equally unpleasing for many reasons, amongst which

is the one that her services are priceless. Some people suggest a ‘wife’s charter’ of rights;

others suggest equally futile remedies. The plain truth of the matter is that the present

position of women in marriage is an anomaly, and due to clumsy attempts made from time

to time to tinker up the laws of marriage, which have descended to us from feudal days.

Now, the root of the matter is the position of women itself. When women are

enfranchised the marriage laws, which are more unjust in England than in most European

countries, will be overhauled and put right on a just basis. Neither privilege nor injustice is

desirable, but fair play. Let those Liberal women therefore who complain of the economic

position of the wife, see to it that no tricks are played with the Conciliation Bill next year.—

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, W.C., Sept. 29

The Schoolmaster of Sept. 30, 1911 and in the Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal

Posted on by Posted in Letters

The two letters below appeared in in The Schoolmaster of Sept. 30, 1911 and in The

Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal. They are similar, but not identical, suggesting that

Davison responded with an efficient and individually targeted effort.

September. 30, 1911, to the Editor of The Schoolmaster

Sir, — The wail of the Anti is loud in the land at the approaching nemesis of woman suffrage.

It has even penetrated into the progressive ranks of the N.U.T. [National Union of Teachers]

in the form of a swansong by Mr. Arthur Charles Gronno, one of the local secretaries, which he is

giving in long drawn-out sweetness to all members of the Union. The lament bears the un-euphonic

title of ‘The Attempt to Capture the National Union of Teachers by Woman-Suffragists.’ Will you

kindly allow me to descant upon some of the varied harmonious themes of this dirge?

The first theme which attracts my attention is that woman-suffrage is outside the

objects for which the N.U.T. was founded. Mr. Gronno asserts that of those objects, twelve

in number, ‘not one of them except No. IX., dealing with the Provident Society and the

Benevolent and Orphan Fund, aims at anything beyond educational or professional benefit.’

I turn to the twelve objects and find No. V. is ‘To secure the effective representation of

educational interest in Parliament.’ That N.U.T. interests can be effectively represented

when 38,380 members are women to the 30,693 men, probably even Mr. Gronno would

not venture to assert, especially as ‘men are men and women are women.’

Mr. Gronno assures us in dulcet tones that the greater number of the N.U.T. are

opposed to woman-suffrage. He no doubt hopes to hoodwink his audience by the fact that

the resolution was not adopted at Aberystwyth. But they are not such greenhorns as to

ignore that the mass of delegates there voted not against woman-suffrage, but against the

urgency of the question.

Mr. Gronno revels in the theme of the anti-suffrage canvass of women municipal

electors, although he knows that these canvasses have been very seriously discredited even

by newspapers with anti-suffragist tendencies. He also forgets that the apathetic and

stupid majority are always less to be considered than the intelligent minority. Mr. Gronno

descants at great length on ‘the fact that women pay rates and taxes has nothing to do with

the vote.’ Here our critical voice rises high. The franchise in England to-day is entirely on a

taxation basis either directly or indirectly. It was on the principle that ‘those who pay the

piper call the tune,’ that the civil war took place in England, and that minor conflicts have

since taken place. Mr. Gronno says, ‘rates and taxes are money paid for value received,’ to

which women reply ‘Has the one who pays not the right to demand value?’ Women, for

instance, may have any Budget imposed on them without so much as a ‘by your leave.’

The sapient Mr. Gronno says that majorities must always rule, apparently ignoring

the fact that the number of women both in the N.U.T. and in the nation are in the majority.

He then goes on to the last theme of the Anti that physical force is the ultima ratio.

According to this contention, the black race ought to rule the white, the prize fighters ought

to sit in the Cabinet! Is not Mr. Gronno in his teaching capacity constantly seeing the

spectacle of a gentle man or woman dominating classes sometimes of sixty big boys or

girls? How? Not by physical force!

Lastly, Mr. Gronno winds up with the theme that twice has the Woman’s Liberal

Association refused to consider the question of woman suffrage. Considering that

suffragists have all along pressed for this reform from the Liberal Party, which as a party

has refused to deal with it and has accordingly suffered, it is not astonishing that these

women who put party before all else, even principle, think woman suffrage a dangerous

subject. But the N.U.T. is not in that position, being, as Mr. Gronno so kindly reminds us,

entirely ‘non part,’ and therefore fearless and progressive.

Eheu fugaces, O Antis! [ref. to Horace: Alas, the fleeting years….]

31 Coram-street, W.C.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

September, 1911 to the Editor of The Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal

Sir,

The wail of the Anti is loud in the land at the approaching Nemesis of Woman

Suffrage. It has even penetrated into the progressive ranks of the N.U.T. in the form of a

swansong by Mr. Arthur Charles Gronno, one of the local secretaries, which he is giving in

long drawn-out sweetness to all members of the Union. The lament bears the uneuphonic

title of ‘The Attempt to Capture the National Union of Teachers by Woman Suffragists.”

Will you kindly allow me to descant upon some of the varied harmonious themes of this

dirge?

The first theme which attracts my attention is that Woman Suffrage is outside the

objects for which the N.U.T. was founded. Mr. Gronno asserts that of those objects, twelve

in number, ‘not one of them except IX., dealing with the Provident Society, and the

Benevolent and Orphan Fund, aims at anything beyond educational or professional benefit.’

I turn to the twelve objects and find No. V. is ‘To secure the effective representation and

educational interests in Parliament.’ That N.U.T. interests can be effectively represented by

a man when 38,380 members are women to the 30,693 men, probably even Mr. Gronno

would not venture to assert, especially as ‘men are men and women are women.’

The dirge next assumes the noisy theme of invective against Suffragists, who are

asserted to be feminists, which betrays a shocking lack of knowledge on the part of the

composer. He also shows the reality of his fear of Woman Suffragists by indicating that a

clever minority is carrying all things against an apathetic or stupid majority. As an example

he warbles about the ineffectiveness of Women Suffragists at elections and by-elections. By

quoting the brave attempt made by the N.U.W.S.S. in two constituencies to see if men really

cared enough about women’s interests to put the Women’s Cause before everything else,

which, of course, failed, he artfully manages to ignore the splendid work of the W.S.P.U. at

the recent General Elections, or at such a by-election as that of Mr. Masterman at West

Ham, where the damage done to him was attributed by Government organs greatly to the

women, or again the Times’ caustic remark on the present Kilmarnock fight:–

‘What may be described as one of the inevitable incidents of elections in these times

is the pertinacious activity of the Women’s Social and Political Union. Miss Christabel

Pankhurst will be the principal speaker for Mr. McKerrell at a meeting here at the end of

the week.’

Mr. Gronno assures us in dulcet tones that the greater number of the N.U.T. are

opposed to Woman Suffrage. He no doubt hopes to hoodwink his audience by the fact that

the resolution was not adopted at Aberystwyth. But they are not such greenhorns as to

ignore that the mass of delegates there voted not against Woman Suffrage, but against the

urgency of the question.

Mr. Gronno revels in the theme of the Anti-Suffrage canvass of Women Municipal

Electors, although he knows that these canvasses have been very seriously discredited

even by newspapers with Anti-Suffragist tendencies. He also forgets that the apathetic and

stupid majority are always less to be considered than the intelligent minority.

The subject following is that at the Aberystwyth occurrence every attempt was

made to ‘make it a fight of women against men.’ Those who were there will know that

many of the men were as keen as the women on the passing of the Resolution.

Mr. Gronno descants at great length on ‘the fact that women pay rates and taxes

have nothing to do with the vote.’ Here our critical voice rises high. The franchise in

England to-day is entirely on a taxation basis, either directly or indirectly. It was on the

principle that ‘those who pay the piper call the tune’ that the civil war took place in

England, and that… [incomplete….]

A Suffrage Lesson from Kansas

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 28, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “A Suffrage Lesson from

Kansas”

The letter below demonstrates Emily Davison’s ability to make bricks out of straw. She turns

a Kansas political conundrum to good use in pushing English suffrage political positions,

specifically that a municipal vote on local affairs is not at all equal to what was termed the

“parliamentary vote,” the powerful vote that can make a difference. Casuistic, the letter

uses the Kansas story to imply women’s greater moral fitness for government

and to suggest that emancipated women will indeed clean the “Augean stables” of public

life.

Sir, –In your paper to-day you give an account of the trouble the woman Mayor of Kansas is

having with the male electors because she is persisting in appointing women to all kinds of

municipal official posts. The men are getting so angry at this that according to the accounts

they are refusing to pay taxes and to obey orders.

Now to those who think the reason is quite clear. Kansas, one of the central States,

is, like the other members of the Federation, riddled with political corruption. The men,

knowing this to be their canker, elected a fearless and upright woman to remove it. The

woman, being a thorough-going reformer, proceeded to cleanse out the Augean stables

with somewhat more zeal and energy than was anticipated. In her struggle she chose

women of like caliber to help her. The men, not being ready for a clean sweep, and finding

some of their own dearest vices threatened, began to kick, with the present result.

Now, as a keen English suffragist, I venture to suggest the real reason of the trouble.

We suffragists in England hold that we must win the Parliamentary vote as an

indispensable preliminary before all else. Anti-suffragists, recognizing that women are too

far in public life to-day to be totally excluded, say that they will not give women the vote,

but that they can devote all their surplus energies to local administration. By such a case as

this their ideas are shown to be completely illogical. If instead of electing a lady mayor the

men of Kansas who desired gradual and sure reform had given the full franchise to the

women of the State the course of events would have been altered. Kansas women would

have entered directly into politics and slowly but surely have eliminated corruption.

Instead of that, the men elected a lady mayor, who, not having had the political education of

being a full elector, rushes madly and courageously into headlong reformation, which may

throw back the cause of reform for some time.

In England, on the other hand, such women as Miss Margaret Ashton, having

wrestled vainly and nobly to bring about reform in municipal matters simply by personal

influence (the influence which our opponents praise), unsupported by the fact of being

publicly recognised as full citizens, have recognized that they must lay aside all such side

issues of the great question and win political enfranchisement. Kansas proves that they are

right! –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, CORAM-STREET, LONDON, W.C.,

September 26

Enfranchisement of Working Men

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 23, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post, “Enfranchisement of Working

Men”

Emily Davison’s broad vision of the social and political ramifications of suffrage lead

her to conclude that economic and social issues were inextricably tied to political decisions,

and that the only way to improve the lot of working men and women lay through access to

and influence in Parliament. In refuting the argument of “Special Correspondent” she may

well have had in mind the service and influence of Thomas Burt of Morpeth (1837-1922), a

self-educated coal-miner who was elected Liberal MP for Morpeth in 1873, continuing in that

seat until he retired in 1918. Burt was an active and successful advocate for Northeast coal

miners.

Sir, –In the tenth of the clever series of articles by your Special Correspondent on “The

Revolt of Labour” it is suggested that one of the causes of the present position of Trade

Unionism is the “curse of politics.” In a very able way the writer points out that the right to

have representation in Parliament which was secured by the Acts of 1871, 1875, and 1876

to Trade Unions has acted in detrimental fashion upon the Unions in some ways. He gives

as the two main reasons of this fact that the men’s Parliamentary representatives become

blinded by the glamour of Westminster, and as a result get out of touch with the Trade

Unions; and, secondly, that the various lodges and branches allow themselves to be led

away from their primary object into becoming hotbeds of Socialism.

Now, there is no doubt a great deal of truth in both of these contentions, but, on the

other hand, no great reform has ever been introduced without some hardships and even

mistakes accompanying it. It is impossible to forget that Trade Unionism would not have

gained its present position without the power of Parliamentary representation behind it.

Trade Unions had been in existence for numbers of years before working men got the vote,

and so secured representation for their union. That this was necessary is proved by the

women’s Trade Unions to-day. They have no power of collective bargaining because they

have no vote, and so even in Bermondsey they thought themselves extraordinarily

successful because they won an increase of wages, mostly of about 1s a week.

As for the problem put before us by your Special Correspondent it will undoubtedly

find its solution soon in the institution of Arbitration Courts or some such scheme. The

militant tactics of the men will necessitate the finding of a way, and all this in indirect ways

is the result of the enfranchisement of the working-man. The working woman must now be

enfranchised too. Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, Sept. 22

Anonymously authored article in M.A.P.

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 23, 1911, anonymously authored article in M.A.P.

Emily Davison’s cogent and passionate denunciation of Lloyd George’s duplicitous tactics is

embedded in a fragment of an article from M.A.P. It is included here because Davison saved

several copies of the fragment, and may have been justifiably proud of the way she identified

the twists and turns the Liberal government executed in its attempt to prevent a suffrage bill

from ever becoming law without actually acknowledging that failure was its goal.

Recently I asked Suffragists what grounds they had for describing Mr. Lloyd George as an

opponent of votes for women. Miss Emily Wilding Davison sends me a long letter on this

subject from which I quote the following:

“We account the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the most dangerous of our foes, for

the well-known reason that ‘he that is not for us is against us.’ Now, Mr. Lloyd George, with

all his glib assurances that he is in favour of Woman Suffrage, has never done one single

deed to prove his bona fides. More than this, he has even done several deeds which justify

our opinion of him.

“It was his treachery, and that of Mr. Winston Churchill, which killed last year’s

Conciliation Bill. If those two members of the Cabinet had not stood up and said that they

would not support the Bill because it was not sufficiently wide (i.e., because it was the first

Woman Suffrage Bill which had ever been seriously treated in the House of Commons), that

Bill would undoubtedly have gone to Grand Committee upstairs, and been passed. But their

bold treachery stiffened the backs of some of the waverers, who followed their lead.

“This convincing example of Mr. Lloyd George’s concealed desire to smash up every

chance of Woman Suffrage has been followed up by his subtle suggestion to the Liberal

Suffragists when they met in Committee recently, that they might try and commandeer Mr.

Asquith’s promise of facilities for a wider Suffrage Bill on Woman Suffrage, i.e., a Bill

doomed from the beginning.

“Finding that his ideas were not too favourably received, he changed them to the

tune of pushing forward the Conciliation Bill next session, and then widening (i.e., killing) it

by amendments. He even made the ‘slim’ [crafty] move of asserting that the facilities promised for

the Conciliation Bill could be deliberately stolen for any other Suffrage Bill which admitted

of amendent [sic] and received a Second Reading. In this misstatement, however, he had

gone too far, as was proved of course by Mr. Asquith’s explicit answer to Lord Lytton’s

challenge upon the point. The facilities are for the Conciliation Bill and another.

“With such a record against him is it likely that any Suffragist, who is politically

awake, could possibly regard Mr. Lloyd George as anything but a ravening wolf in sheep’s

clothing, especially in view of the fact that all the most genuine suffragists in the House of

Commons declare that the Conciliation Bill is the only one that has the remotest chance of

passing into law in the present House of Commons?”

[editor’s partial reply: Still, I do not see how the Chancellor can justly be called an

opponent of women’s suffrage. To be against a certain Bill dealing with women’s suffrage

does not mean that a man is against the principle of women’s suffrage. The fact is, that

most Suffragists are so anxious to see the thick end of the wedge—for the Conciliation

Bill is only the thin edge of the wedge—that they are apt to overlook the fact that the

Bill in question is eminently undemocratic and that it cannot appeal to people with the

democratic spirit strongly developed…]