November 17, 1911, To the Editor of The Yorkshire Observer, “Militant Woman Suffragists”
If the letters Davison wrote over the month of November, in which she seems to take on all
comers, give the reader a sense that she may have felt embattled, the letter below suggests
she felt her back against a wall. Of course her determination did not flinch, but it may have
occurred to her that the goal she sought would be denied and that the Woman Suffrage
movement might die the death of a thousand cuts. Here she tries to explain why Asquith’s
“universal suffrage” is not universal at all. She argues against the “yes, but” syndrome typified
by the editorial addendum to her letter.
Davison seems to take comfort in the fact that the national Press coverage of Asquith’s
proposal to bring a bill for universal manhood suffrage recognized the proposal as a dodge,
and as a betrayal of the woman’s suffrage movement. But she pushes back on criticism of all
suffragists’ disappointment that after two years of waiting with justifiable expectation that
a woman suffrage bill would become law, they are angry. Faithful to her cause, she rebuts
the charge that suffragettes are hysterical, saying that they are “practical” politicians who
will now think about how and when to press their cause further. In a sentence that seems to
presage the events about to unfold when in early December she initiates her own militant
campaign of setting fire to Post Office boxes in London, she shows her determination to win,
at all costs.
This letter is the first of a series of letters accompanied by editorial responses to her
words. The letters she writes over the next year are often part of a dialogue with another
writer, or the editor of a paper. It seems that she had become well-known for her militant
devotion, as well as for her active pen.
Sir, –The Press of the country were practically united in attributing the Prime Minister’s
Manhood Suffrage more to a desire to swamp votes for women. We of the Women’s Social
and Political Union at once saw through the move, took up the challenge, and hurled
defiance at the enemies of our cause. But we are not, as recent criticisms of yours would
seem to suggest, hysterical fanatics, who need but a word of opposition to break out into
blind frenzy. Our self-restraint during the past two years is evidence enough of that. We
are, above all, practical politicians nowadays, and we shall make our moves when and
how it seems best to us. You seem to think that the mere raison d’etre of militancy is
advertisement. That, of course, follows, but it is not, and never has been, the chief reason
for militancy. Militancy means in plain language determination to win at all costs—I am,
&c.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram Street, London, W.C. November 15
[We distinguish the end in view from the methods pursued. While we condemn many of
the latter, we are in sympathy with the former.—Editor.]