This letter makes Davison’s plea for voice and agency clearer: government ministers, even the Prime Minister, must respond to questions in the House and at meetings. Why are women’s questions deemed interruptions and unseemly?

Sir, –Under the same heading as that under which you attacked us for the events of November 21 you now pour abuse on us for the event of November 27. In times past you have uttered some strictures when we have gone to Cabinet Ministers’ meetings to remind them that the cause of woman suffrage would not be denied, but your epithets as to this latest occasion are as unrestrained as you describe our actions to be. And why this outcry on this special occasion? Mr. Asquith is the paid servant of the public, and is answerable to the women as well as the men; only he refuses to listen to them. Why this outcry when interruptions are made at his meetings? Has Mr. Asquith never been howled down before? What about a recent famous scene in the House of Commons—(oh, shades of horror!)—when the Die-Hards, led by Lord Hugh Cecil, certainly howled down the head of the Government in the House itself. What about various Liberal meetings broken up by Conservative opponents, and vice versa? This is no new thing in politics. Every Member of Parliament or of the Cabinet knows that he is subject to heckling and questioning at public meetings, and, if he cannot stand it or deal with it, he is not worth much.

As for Ramsay Macdonald and his dire threat, it has no effect upon us; in fact, we are rejoiced that he has revealed himself in his true light as a foe to the woman’s cause. We want no crocodile tears. I am, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31 Coram Street, London, W.C.

[Propagandists would make free discussion impossible if they all imitated the violent woman suffragists and demanded that their programmes only and all the time should be talked about by our public men. It is especially fatuous to ask the Prime Minister to concentrate his thought and speech upon woman suffrage, for it is notorious that he is opposed absolutely to giving women the vote. Our correspondent and her friends ought to realize that there are some things women cannot do by screaming and nagging, and one of these things is the conversion of anti-suffragists like Mr. Asquith into enthusiastic advocates for giving votes to the screamers.—EDITOR]

The editors of The Yorkshire Observer and The Manchester Guardian begin to append their own statements to Davison’s letters with increasing regularity. Here the issue is the contentious topic of militancy, and its success or lack of success in furthering the suffrage cause. The editorial position of The Yorkshire Observer doubts the value of militancy. Davison, a particularly energetic militant, believed in its strategic utility. The activities of November 21, 1911, which both the editor and Davison refer to are described by Andrew Rosen in Rise Up, Women! this way:
“On 21 November [1911], Mrs Pethick-Lawrence led the usual deputation from the Caxton Hall to Parliament Square. The women who met at 7 p.m. at 156 Charing Cross Road did not march with the deputation. Instead, armed with bags of stones and hammers supplied to them at the WSPU shop, the women went singly to break windows at Government offices and business premises. Windows were smashed at the Home Office, Local Government Board, Treasury, Scottish Educational Office, Somerset House, National Liberal Federation, Guards’ Club, two hotels, the Daily Mail and Daily News, Swan and Edgar’s, Lyon’s, and Dunn’s Hat Shop, as well as at a chemist’s, a tailor’s, a bakery, and other small businesses. Two hundred and twenty women and three men were arrested. The WSPU had never before attacked premises connected with neither the Government nor the Liberal Party. (p. 154; ; from “What Did the Suffragettes Do?” online http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_SuffragetteActions_Rosen.htm)

Sir, –In the leading article in your issue of November 21 on ‘The Violent Suffragists’ you speak of the scenes threatened for that date as some which would degenerate into ‘an orgie of brute force.’ Will you allow me to point out that your prophecy has not been fulfilled? The police, for example, having particular orders from the new Home Secretary apparently, showed a very different attitude from last November. The crowd was well behaved and sympathetic to the women, thereby disproving your prophecy that such an undertaking at night was ill-advised, and proving the contention of the Women’s Social and Political Union that it was far better for women to wait till the honest working man could be out to see fair play.

For the rest your statements are inaccurate, not to say ill-advised. You say that the victory of woman suffrage, when won, will be attributed to Mrs. Fawcett and her forty [or rather fifty] years of hard effort and not the Amazonian efforts for six years of Mrs. Pankhurst. We do not mind one little bit to whom the victory is attributed, so long as it is won. But you cannot wonder when you contemplate the position of woman suffrage just six years ago after forty years of untiring, devoted effort, that some women at any rate thought that a change of method was necessary. The result has justified this change. Look at the position of the question in the forefront of politics to-day. Look at the utterances of that politician Mr. Lloyd George at Bath last night. Would such an astute and slim [devious] politician as he have made a similar speech six years ago? Observe the signs of the times, and the result of militancy is more than justified.—I am, &c.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram Street, W.C., November 25

[Our article spoke of what was ‘likely,’ and while we think the actual occurrences sufficiently regrettable, the fact that they were not worse is quite consistent with the truth of the statement that as seen in advance they were likely to be. The magnitude of the police arrangements shows that we were by no means singular in our view of the probabilities. We fail to see that ‘militancy’ deserves the credit of the fact that the suffrage movement is more advanced than it was six years ago. So are many other movements which militancy has neither helped nor hindered. –EDITOR]

If the letters Davison wrote over the month of November, in which she seems to take on all

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.]