Deeds Not Words | Monthly Archives: August 1911

August 20,1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Times

Posted on August 20, 1911 by Emily Davison Posted in Letters

August 20,1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Times

A letter so convoluted in its argument that only those who know the references to New

Zealand politics may have understood it. In all likelihood Davison did not have a copy of the

New Zealand Offiical Year Book for 1910 to hand, but she knew where to find one and how

to use it to support her argument from fact, not memory. Clearly Davison has her dander up

here—she dislikes being criticized and she definitely does not like to be reduced to the level of

stereotypes of women: “No one but a woman would think that a reply.”

Sir, — Mr. F.W. Sharp politely accuses me of being “tone-deaf” and of “a little discrepancy of

fact,” What of this gentleman’s own original statement that “the only issue of any kind in

New Zealand is Prohibition, aye or no, and for this the women vote on one side and the men

on the other”? When Lady Stout completely disproved this statement by figures from the

New Zealand Official Year Book for 1910, which showed that men as well as women voted

against beer, which did away with his fiction that men voted pro-Beer and women contra-

Beer (for otherwise Beer would have gained the day), Mr. F.W. Sharp petulantly exclaimed

that “No one but a woman would think that a reply” or would attempt to prove anything

from figures.

At this point I stepped in and Mr. Sharp then turned his attentions to me and

attacked me because I used the term which he himself used and chose at the beginning of

the argument, “Prohibition,“ which he declared to be “the only issue of any kind in New

Zealand.” All the world knows what he apparently ignores, that the power of Prohibition

was inaugurated and “passed” for New Zealand by the Alcoholic Liquor Sale Act of 1893,

which instituted Local Opposition. This Act determined that voters should decide:

(b) Whether the number shall be reduced.

Mr. Sharp leaves himself a small loophole of escape by the remark “I speak from memory,”

for his statement that “with the exception of four or five of the smaller towns (I speak from

memory) or as we should call them villages with populations averaging 3,000 to 4,000

there is no Prohibition in New Zealand, and therefore it cannot have been passed by a very

decided majority.”

I should strongly recommend him to buy and study the New Zealand Official Year

Book for 1910, where he will find some very interesting lists referring to sixty-eight

licensing districts, each including inhabitants varying between 5,000 and 9,000. His

attention should especially be drawn to page 457, on which occurs the following passage:

“From the foregoing table it will be seen that 175,671 votes were recorded in favour

of continuing existing licenses….162,562 for reduction, and 221,471 for no license. In

thirty-four of the sixty-eight licensing districts no proposal was carried, in fifteen the

majority of the voters was in favour of continuance, in seven reduction, in six no license

was carried, and six non-restoration was carried. In thirty-eight of the districts a majority

of the polls was for no license, but not in sufficient number to make up the three-fifths

required to carry that issue. Of the total number of persons who voted 235,554, or 55.82

per cent., were men, and 186,399 or 44.18, were women… The increases in the number of

votes recorded for no license or reduction are prominent features in the (given) table.”

The full value of the above passage is clear if the student turns to the Local Option

Polls of the Year Book of 1900, where he will find that all the licensing districts

carried ”reduction” and one which carried “no license.” Where now is Mr. Sharp’s accuracy

and authority? __ Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, W.C., August 10 [1911]

The Suffragists and Their Recent Demonstration

Posted on August 11, 1911 by Emily Davison Posted in Letters

August 11, 1911, To the Editor of The Stratford Upon Avon Herald.

“The Suffragists and Their Recent Demonstration”

Whether the militant tactics of the WSPU advanced or retarded the passage of women’s

suffrage is still debated. This letter indicates the spread of opinion and the frustration that

attended the issue of militancy. In England, as in the United States, the passage of Women’s

Suffrage came only after a long period of “peaceful” campaigning. In England the militant

movement co-existed with and intermingled with the so-called ‘constitutionalists,” the

suffrage movement Davison applauds at the beginning of the second paragraph.

Sir, — In your issue of July 28th you have a long and excellent description of the Midland

Suffragists’ demonstration held on July 26th. Your editorial comment upon it is very fair and

accurate, except in the latter part, where you say that suffragists “recognize that they are

now within easy reach of the privilege for which they have been fighting for the last thirty

years, and fighting heroically, and in the majority of cases constitutionally. No sympathy

need be shown for the militant portion of the party, although we are told that it is their

physical exploits that have brought the question so much nearer a solution.”

It is true, of course, that the fight for women’s suffrage was carried on for nearly fifty

years before the militant campaign began, all honour to the brave pioneers who struggled

on so valiantly and hoping against hope. But your view of the militant work is evidently

entirely biased. It was the militants, for example, who organized this peaceful and beautiful

demonstration, for, as you do not appear to know, the constitutional side of the work has

always gone forward side by side with the militant.

You say that “violence is so utterly opposed to woman’s nature, that she disgraces

herself when she enters upon any undertaking involving its employment.” The blame for

the need to resort of violence lies upon those who would listen to no other methods. Why

did not the Government listen to the patient, persistent, and constitutional pleading of the

women? Why did they force them into militancy as the only way? Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISION

Miss E.W. Davison writes from 31, Coram Street, London, W.C.

Posted on August 7, 1911 by Emily Davison Posted in Letters

Monday, August 7, 1911 [incorrect date], To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian

“Miss E.W. Davison writes from 31, Coram Street, London, W.C.:”

The following letter testifies to the strain of patience so often ignored—or forgotten—

in regard to the militant suffrage movement. Many women, militant or constitutionalist,

accepted that the British government was always slow to move, a testimony to the

conservative and careful way in which major changes in the political structure of the country

were proposed and adopted. The issue here is the hope for a suffrage bill which was modest

and clever in its goals: that women should have the vote on the same terms as men have

the vote. The goal of equality came before the goal of universal suffrage for the WSPU. The

Liberal government of the time proposed universal manhood suffrage as a way to forestall

women’s suffrage. The WSPU was very careful to adhere to its apparently modest goal of

equal terms of suffrage for men and women.

In answer to Mrs. Swanwick, the Manchester anti-suffragists have sent a letter which you

publish in your Saturday’s issue. The first fallacy under which, apparently, they labour is

that women, as women, can as yet expect equal treatment with men, and can demand as

large a share of the electorate to be accorded to them at one fell swoop as the men have

gained after a long and desperate struggle for themselves. Such an error is due to

ignorance of the character of the English voter. Thus Mr. Gladstone said in his powerful

speech on the Representation of the People Act of 1884:– “I am prepared for the complaint

that this is not a complete bill and for the question ‘Why don’t you introduce a complete

bill?’ On that I have to say that there never has been a complete bill presented to

Parliament on this question of Parliamentary reform. Parliament has never attempted a

complete bill, and, moreover, I will go a little further and say that Governments and

Parliaments would have made the gravest error in judgment—I might almost say they

would have been out of their senses—if they had attempted a complete bill. I have the

strongest appeal to make to the friends of this bill: I entreat them not to endanger it by

additions, for I do not hesitate to say that it is just as possible for friends to destroy the bill

by additions which it will not bear as it is for enemies.” The event justified his policy. But if

such amendments as that which would have included women had been pressed, Mr.

Gladstone would not have won his measure. Just as the bill of 1884 could not be

overweighted for the sake of the women in 1884, so the women’s bill in 1912 cannot be

overweighted with amendments, however justifiable they may seem.

Suffrage Arguments. Recent Incidents on Which Women Claim the Vote

Posted on August 7, 1911 by Emily Davison Posted in Letters

Sunday, August 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Graphic, “Suffrage Arguments. Recent

Incidents on Which Women Claim the Vote”

This letter introduces a theme which recurs throughout Davison’s writing, the economic

disadvantage women endure because they do not have the vote, and consequently have no

parliamentary recourse against discriminatory economic legislation.

Sir,–No better object lesson could be afforded of the imminent necessity of the speedy

enfranchisement of women than the passing by the Grand Committee sitting on the Coal

Mines Bill, by 15 to 13, of the amendment which will throw 3,000 women out of decent,

honest employment. This fact was fully recognized and explained by Sir Frederick

Banbury, who drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if the amendment

passed, it would afford one of the strongest possible arguments for Votes for Women.

That such an amendment could have ever been proposed in the House of Commons

rams the fact home. For this is a clear case of the rights of the individual, of the human

being, in short, of the right to work being infringed. Is there any single body of men from

whom their right to engage in the work by which they can earn their bread could be calmly

filched? We know there is not. The only possible grounds upon which such an action could

be justified is that the employment is injurious to themselves of the community. In this

case it is neither. The girls are claimed to be far healthier and better developed and to

make better wives and mothers than girls who are employed in factories. A great outcry

was raised, when it was proposed out of a spurious sentimentalism to prevent women

earning their living as barmaids; now there is not even the pretended excuse of moral

danger. The only real excuse is that a certain number of mining men want to exclude

women from taking any share in that employment for which they are fitted, so that men

may have it.

Sir Frederick Banbury, although a staunch anti-suffragist, has pointed the moral

well. The only safeguard against such iniquities is to give women the direct voice in

legislation.—Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, W.C.

The Spirit Behind History

Posted on August 6, 1911 by Emily Davison Posted in Letters

To the Editor of The Sunday Times, August 6, 1911.
“The Spirit Behind History”

This letter reflects Davison’s interest in contemporary currents of historical thought, especially the notion of continuous development of human history toward an apogee of enlightened individual development. The conception of a process driven by “an animating spirit” which Davison elsewhere identifies with God, structures a rebuttal framed as a critique of out-dated thinking. This is a mode Davison frequently uses, believing firmly in ideas of evolution, progress, and the value of contemporary, as opposed to traditional, attitudes and modes of thinking. The former she identifies with freedom from inherited patterns of power. As in other letters, she identifies the enemy of individual liberty as “feudalism” glossed here as “days of privilege,” a metonymy for the entire world of money, property, and class which had controlled England for centuries. (¹)

Sir,–Mr. Williams does not belong to the modern comparative school of history or he would not pick out separate events or individuals and make empiricisms from them. All historical students now reject this method and turn instead to the comparative study of history recognizing that it is not “a mere string of episodes, but a continuous development.” A better example of the newer school could not be given than the Cambridge Modern History, which was taken in hand by the late Lord Acton. If Mr. Williams turns up volume after volume he will see that each is entitled after some great world event, such as the Renaissance, or the Thirty Years’ War, the comprehensive study of the origin, development, and result of which sometimes covers many reigns, different countries, and sometimes even centuries. He could not do better than study carefully the scholarly Introductory Note to Volume I. of the work by the late Bishop of London, Dr. Mandell Creighton, on the aims and methods of Modern History, who gets well at the root of the matter when he says: “After marshalling all the forces and ideas which were at work to produce it [history] he [the student] still feels that there was behind all these an animating spirit which he cannot but most imperfectly catch whose power blended all else together and gave a sudden cohesion to the whole.”

It is this illuminating idea—this power of historic vision—which Mr. Williams evidently at present lacks. As a result, he is unable to grasp the true significance which lies behind the days of Cromwell and the Civil War, and of that even greater event, the French Revolution. He cannot see the wood for the trees. He is so busy looking at the little details, the faults and horrors, that he cannot see the true significance of the whole. The real meaning is the destruction of feudalism and the ending of the days of privilege.

May I refer Mr. Williams to the Cambridge Modern History, in Volume VIII., of which he may read: “The French Revolution is the most important event in the life of modern Europe. Herder compared it to the Reformation and the rise of Christianity…. Like them, it destroyed the landmarks of the world in which generations of men had passed their lives, because it was a movement towards a completer humanity, and because it was a religion, with its doctrines, its apostles, and its martyrs…. As Christianity taught man that he was a spiritual being, and the Reformation proclaimed that nothing need stand between the soul and God, so the Revolution asserted the equality of man, conceiving individuals as partakers of a common nature, and declaring each one of them, regardless of birth or religion, to be possessed of certain inalienable rights.”

Finally, in the same chapter Mr. Williams will see that the doctrine that women as well as men had a right to personal liberty really arose at the time of the French Revolution, which doctrine is the reason that women are now fighting the last battle against feudalism.

I am not at all surprised that Mr. Pickup considers reference to the dictionary a work of supererogation; in fact, I should imagine from his use of the words democracy, people, evolution, etc., that it is a habit in which he seldom indulges, but which he might with advantage adopt.

May I just name a few of the injustices of English legislation due to the fact that the women’s point of view is not consulted as well as the men’s?

The double standard of morality is bad: it injures both men and women, although the toll falls the more heavily upon the latter.
The mother as well as the father should be recognized as the legal guardian of the child.
The present unfair position of women in marriage and divorce is a national scandal.
The Government leads the way in giving lower pay to women because they are women, where they do equal work. The teaching profession is an excellent example. Sweated work done in uniforms is another.
Legislation is being introduced every day in which the women’s point of view is not fairly treated. The National Insurance Scheme is one example. The present amendment to the Coal Mines Act, which throws 3,000 women out of work, is another.
The existence of the white slave traffic and the fact that a Bill to check this has no chance of becoming law is a national crime.
I could give many more examples to prove my point that it is “penny wise and pound foolish” policy of the nation to exclude women from citizenship. Acquiescence in such injustice would be sharing in the crime! – Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram Street, W.C., August 3

Footnote ↩