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