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

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