Monthly Archives: September 1911

Modern Marriage

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 30, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser, “Modern Marriage”

Davison’s conviction that the “present” position of women is an historical anomaly owing

to an incomplete transition from a feudal to a more modern system of laws underlies her

conviction that the franchise will have a direct, beneficial effect on women’s position in the

laws of England and in their households. She asks for equality and “fair play” rather than

favoritism or patronizing deference. The same letter was sent and published under the

heading “Wages for Wives” in the Daily Express on September 30, 1911.

Sir,– In your columns to-day you deal with the question of the position of the wife with

regard to the family income, apropos of the remarks made by Yorkshire women Liberals.

The present position of the wife in the matter is entirely unsatisfactory. But the idea of a

wife receiving ‘wages’ is of course equally unpleasing for many reasons, amongst which

is the one that her services are priceless. Some people suggest a ‘wife’s charter’ of rights;

others suggest equally futile remedies. The plain truth of the matter is that the present

position of women in marriage is an anomaly, and due to clumsy attempts made from time

to time to tinker up the laws of marriage, which have descended to us from feudal days.

Now, the root of the matter is the position of women itself. When women are

enfranchised the marriage laws, which are more unjust in England than in most European

countries, will be overhauled and put right on a just basis. Neither privilege nor injustice is

desirable, but fair play. Let those Liberal women therefore who complain of the economic

position of the wife, see to it that no tricks are played with the Conciliation Bill next year.—

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, W.C., Sept. 29

The Schoolmaster of Sept. 30, 1911 and in the Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal

Posted on by Posted in Letters

The two letters below appeared in in The Schoolmaster of Sept. 30, 1911 and in The

Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal. They are similar, but not identical, suggesting that

Davison responded with an efficient and individually targeted effort.

September. 30, 1911, to the Editor of The Schoolmaster

Sir, — The wail of the Anti is loud in the land at the approaching nemesis of woman suffrage.

It has even penetrated into the progressive ranks of the N.U.T. [National Union of Teachers]

in the form of a swansong by Mr. Arthur Charles Gronno, one of the local secretaries, which he is

giving in long drawn-out sweetness to all members of the Union. The lament bears the un-euphonic

title of ‘The Attempt to Capture the National Union of Teachers by Woman-Suffragists.’ Will you

kindly allow me to descant upon some of the varied harmonious themes of this dirge?

The first theme which attracts my attention is that woman-suffrage is outside the

objects for which the N.U.T. was founded. Mr. Gronno asserts that of those objects, twelve

in number, ‘not one of them except No. IX., dealing with the Provident Society and the

Benevolent and Orphan Fund, aims at anything beyond educational or professional benefit.’

I turn to the twelve objects and find No. V. is ‘To secure the effective representation of

educational interest in Parliament.’ That N.U.T. interests can be effectively represented

when 38,380 members are women to the 30,693 men, probably even Mr. Gronno would

not venture to assert, especially as ‘men are men and women are women.’

Mr. Gronno assures us in dulcet tones that the greater number of the N.U.T. are

opposed to woman-suffrage. He no doubt hopes to hoodwink his audience by the fact that

the resolution was not adopted at Aberystwyth. But they are not such greenhorns as to

ignore that the mass of delegates there voted not against woman-suffrage, but against the

urgency of the question.

Mr. Gronno revels in the theme of the anti-suffrage canvass of women municipal

electors, although he knows that these canvasses have been very seriously discredited even

by newspapers with anti-suffragist tendencies. He also forgets that the apathetic and

stupid majority are always less to be considered than the intelligent minority. Mr. Gronno

descants at great length on ‘the fact that women pay rates and taxes has nothing to do with

the vote.’ Here our critical voice rises high. The franchise in England to-day is entirely on a

taxation basis either directly or indirectly. It was on the principle that ‘those who pay the

piper call the tune,’ that the civil war took place in England, and that minor conflicts have

since taken place. Mr. Gronno says, ‘rates and taxes are money paid for value received,’ to

which women reply ‘Has the one who pays not the right to demand value?’ Women, for

instance, may have any Budget imposed on them without so much as a ‘by your leave.’

The sapient Mr. Gronno says that majorities must always rule, apparently ignoring

the fact that the number of women both in the N.U.T. and in the nation are in the majority.

He then goes on to the last theme of the Anti that physical force is the ultima ratio.

According to this contention, the black race ought to rule the white, the prize fighters ought

to sit in the Cabinet! Is not Mr. Gronno in his teaching capacity constantly seeing the

spectacle of a gentle man or woman dominating classes sometimes of sixty big boys or

girls? How? Not by physical force!

Lastly, Mr. Gronno winds up with the theme that twice has the Woman’s Liberal

Association refused to consider the question of woman suffrage. Considering that

suffragists have all along pressed for this reform from the Liberal Party, which as a party

has refused to deal with it and has accordingly suffered, it is not astonishing that these

women who put party before all else, even principle, think woman suffrage a dangerous

subject. But the N.U.T. is not in that position, being, as Mr. Gronno so kindly reminds us,

entirely ‘non part,’ and therefore fearless and progressive.

Eheu fugaces, O Antis! [ref. to Horace: Alas, the fleeting years….]

31 Coram-street, W.C.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

September, 1911 to the Editor of The Finsbury and City Teachers’ Journal

Sir,

The wail of the Anti is loud in the land at the approaching Nemesis of Woman

Suffrage. It has even penetrated into the progressive ranks of the N.U.T. in the form of a

swansong by Mr. Arthur Charles Gronno, one of the local secretaries, which he is giving in

long drawn-out sweetness to all members of the Union. The lament bears the uneuphonic

title of ‘The Attempt to Capture the National Union of Teachers by Woman Suffragists.”

Will you kindly allow me to descant upon some of the varied harmonious themes of this

dirge?

The first theme which attracts my attention is that Woman Suffrage is outside the

objects for which the N.U.T. was founded. Mr. Gronno asserts that of those objects, twelve

in number, ‘not one of them except IX., dealing with the Provident Society, and the

Benevolent and Orphan Fund, aims at anything beyond educational or professional benefit.’

I turn to the twelve objects and find No. V. is ‘To secure the effective representation and

educational interests in Parliament.’ That N.U.T. interests can be effectively represented by

a man when 38,380 members are women to the 30,693 men, probably even Mr. Gronno

would not venture to assert, especially as ‘men are men and women are women.’

The dirge next assumes the noisy theme of invective against Suffragists, who are

asserted to be feminists, which betrays a shocking lack of knowledge on the part of the

composer. He also shows the reality of his fear of Woman Suffragists by indicating that a

clever minority is carrying all things against an apathetic or stupid majority. As an example

he warbles about the ineffectiveness of Women Suffragists at elections and by-elections. By

quoting the brave attempt made by the N.U.W.S.S. in two constituencies to see if men really

cared enough about women’s interests to put the Women’s Cause before everything else,

which, of course, failed, he artfully manages to ignore the splendid work of the W.S.P.U. at

the recent General Elections, or at such a by-election as that of Mr. Masterman at West

Ham, where the damage done to him was attributed by Government organs greatly to the

women, or again the Times’ caustic remark on the present Kilmarnock fight:–

‘What may be described as one of the inevitable incidents of elections in these times

is the pertinacious activity of the Women’s Social and Political Union. Miss Christabel

Pankhurst will be the principal speaker for Mr. McKerrell at a meeting here at the end of

the week.’

Mr. Gronno assures us in dulcet tones that the greater number of the N.U.T. are

opposed to Woman Suffrage. He no doubt hopes to hoodwink his audience by the fact that

the resolution was not adopted at Aberystwyth. But they are not such greenhorns as to

ignore that the mass of delegates there voted not against Woman Suffrage, but against the

urgency of the question.

Mr. Gronno revels in the theme of the Anti-Suffrage canvass of Women Municipal

Electors, although he knows that these canvasses have been very seriously discredited

even by newspapers with Anti-Suffragist tendencies. He also forgets that the apathetic and

stupid majority are always less to be considered than the intelligent minority.

The subject following is that at the Aberystwyth occurrence every attempt was

made to ‘make it a fight of women against men.’ Those who were there will know that

many of the men were as keen as the women on the passing of the Resolution.

Mr. Gronno descants at great length on ‘the fact that women pay rates and taxes

have nothing to do with the vote.’ Here our critical voice rises high. The franchise in

England to-day is entirely on a taxation basis, either directly or indirectly. It was on the

principle that ‘those who pay the piper call the tune’ that the civil war took place in

England, and that… [incomplete….]

A Suffrage Lesson from Kansas

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 28, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “A Suffrage Lesson from

Kansas”

The letter below demonstrates Emily Davison’s ability to make bricks out of straw. She turns

a Kansas political conundrum to good use in pushing English suffrage political positions,

specifically that a municipal vote on local affairs is not at all equal to what was termed the

“parliamentary vote,” the powerful vote that can make a difference. Casuistic, the letter

uses the Kansas story to imply women’s greater moral fitness for government

and to suggest that emancipated women will indeed clean the “Augean stables” of public

life.

Sir, –In your paper to-day you give an account of the trouble the woman Mayor of Kansas is

having with the male electors because she is persisting in appointing women to all kinds of

municipal official posts. The men are getting so angry at this that according to the accounts

they are refusing to pay taxes and to obey orders.

Now to those who think the reason is quite clear. Kansas, one of the central States,

is, like the other members of the Federation, riddled with political corruption. The men,

knowing this to be their canker, elected a fearless and upright woman to remove it. The

woman, being a thorough-going reformer, proceeded to cleanse out the Augean stables

with somewhat more zeal and energy than was anticipated. In her struggle she chose

women of like caliber to help her. The men, not being ready for a clean sweep, and finding

some of their own dearest vices threatened, began to kick, with the present result.

Now, as a keen English suffragist, I venture to suggest the real reason of the trouble.

We suffragists in England hold that we must win the Parliamentary vote as an

indispensable preliminary before all else. Anti-suffragists, recognizing that women are too

far in public life to-day to be totally excluded, say that they will not give women the vote,

but that they can devote all their surplus energies to local administration. By such a case as

this their ideas are shown to be completely illogical. If instead of electing a lady mayor the

men of Kansas who desired gradual and sure reform had given the full franchise to the

women of the State the course of events would have been altered. Kansas women would

have entered directly into politics and slowly but surely have eliminated corruption.

Instead of that, the men elected a lady mayor, who, not having had the political education of

being a full elector, rushes madly and courageously into headlong reformation, which may

throw back the cause of reform for some time.

In England, on the other hand, such women as Miss Margaret Ashton, having

wrestled vainly and nobly to bring about reform in municipal matters simply by personal

influence (the influence which our opponents praise), unsupported by the fact of being

publicly recognised as full citizens, have recognized that they must lay aside all such side

issues of the great question and win political enfranchisement. Kansas proves that they are

right! –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, CORAM-STREET, LONDON, W.C.,

September 26

Enfranchisement of Working Men

Posted on by Posted in Letters

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

Anonymously authored article in M.A.P.

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 23, 1911, anonymously authored article in M.A.P.

Emily Davison’s cogent and passionate denunciation of Lloyd George’s duplicitous tactics is

embedded in a fragment of an article from M.A.P. It is included here because Davison saved

several copies of the fragment, and may have been justifiably proud of the way she identified

the twists and turns the Liberal government executed in its attempt to prevent a suffrage bill

from ever becoming law without actually acknowledging that failure was its goal.

Recently I asked Suffragists what grounds they had for describing Mr. Lloyd George as an

opponent of votes for women. Miss Emily Wilding Davison sends me a long letter on this

subject from which I quote the following:

“We account the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the most dangerous of our foes, for

the well-known reason that ‘he that is not for us is against us.’ Now, Mr. Lloyd George, with

all his glib assurances that he is in favour of Woman Suffrage, has never done one single

deed to prove his bona fides. More than this, he has even done several deeds which justify

our opinion of him.

“It was his treachery, and that of Mr. Winston Churchill, which killed last year’s

Conciliation Bill. If those two members of the Cabinet had not stood up and said that they

would not support the Bill because it was not sufficiently wide (i.e., because it was the first

Woman Suffrage Bill which had ever been seriously treated in the House of Commons), that

Bill would undoubtedly have gone to Grand Committee upstairs, and been passed. But their

bold treachery stiffened the backs of some of the waverers, who followed their lead.

“This convincing example of Mr. Lloyd George’s concealed desire to smash up every

chance of Woman Suffrage has been followed up by his subtle suggestion to the Liberal

Suffragists when they met in Committee recently, that they might try and commandeer Mr.

Asquith’s promise of facilities for a wider Suffrage Bill on Woman Suffrage, i.e., a Bill

doomed from the beginning.

“Finding that his ideas were not too favourably received, he changed them to the

tune of pushing forward the Conciliation Bill next session, and then widening (i.e., killing) it

by amendments. He even made the ‘slim’ [crafty] move of asserting that the facilities promised for

the Conciliation Bill could be deliberately stolen for any other Suffrage Bill which admitted

of amendent [sic] and received a Second Reading. In this misstatement, however, he had

gone too far, as was proved of course by Mr. Asquith’s explicit answer to Lord Lytton’s

challenge upon the point. The facilities are for the Conciliation Bill and another.

“With such a record against him is it likely that any Suffragist, who is politically

awake, could possibly regard Mr. Lloyd George as anything but a ravening wolf in sheep’s

clothing, especially in view of the fact that all the most genuine suffragists in the House of

Commons declare that the Conciliation Bill is the only one that has the remotest chance of

passing into law in the present House of Commons?”

[editor’s partial reply: Still, I do not see how the Chancellor can justly be called an

opponent of women’s suffrage. To be against a certain Bill dealing with women’s suffrage

does not mean that a man is against the principle of women’s suffrage. The fact is, that

most Suffragists are so anxious to see the thick end of the wedge—for the Conciliation

Bill is only the thin edge of the wedge—that they are apt to overlook the fact that the

Bill in question is eminently undemocratic and that it cannot appeal to people with the

democratic spirit strongly developed…]

Food Riots and the Suffrage

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 21, 1911, To the Editor of The Eye Witness, “Food Riots and the Suffrage”

Emily Davison knew France, had travelled there, and had planned to go to France after

the Derby in June, 1913, where she was mortally injured. Her letter correcting the mis-

interpretation of the connection between the vote and food riots in The Eye Witness

is a variation on the suffrage theme of no taxation without representation. Its connection of

women and food recalls the central role women play in the family and in the state.

Sir, –In your comments in this week’s issue of your paper upon the Dear Food Riots in

France, after scathing allusions to the capital made out of the riots by Free Traders, you go

out of your way to have a smack at Suffragettes. The passage which you criticise is one in

Votes for Women on these riots: ‘When a country becomes civilised enough to grant votes

to its women, and they learn how to use them, methods of riot and pillage will no longer be

resorted to.’

This you interpret as offering ‘votes as a substitute for food.’ You, however, in your

desire to have a jeer at Suffragettes have entirely missed the gist of the matter. What was

meant was that if women had votes they might use them to get a satisfactory state of affairs

in the conduct of taxation and customs, instead of having to groan and suffer under them

until at last, goaded to desperation, they rise up in mutiny and revolt. It is the women who

feel the food prices most, and in France they are politically dumb. They, therefore, become

publicly vociferous. The octrois and douanerie [tolls, toll collection and custom-tax systems]

of France are enough to make the weakest woman rise, and it is the women who pay them chiefly,

and who therefore feel the most. So it is in England. It is the women who feel the effects of

taxation on food, as well as having to pay the taxes. They have, however, had enough of the ‘pay up

and shut up’ regime, and mean to have a political voice. Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram Street, W.C.

September 15, 1911

Women Strikers of Bermondsey

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 19, 1911, to The Editor of The Morning Post, “Women Strikers of Bermondsey”

In this response to the writer of the original story about the Bermondsey strikes (Sept.

16, 1911, Morning Post), Davison renews her support for the strikers and shares some

of the values and perspectives that underlay her own militant commitment to justice for

women. To the charge that the strikers were in a “holiday” mode, laughing and talking—-

a thinly veiled reference to women’s supposed inherent frivolity—-she recognizes the value

of humor and good spirits as aids in facing “a very serious matter,” the fact that the strike

might deprive women of money necessary to buy food, literally to live. The qualities she

praises in the strikers are those that mark the suffragette—-“facing danger regardless of the

consequences,” a “saving sense of humour,” good will, and a spirit of unity. She sees the strike

as another manifestation of a new dawn of recognition that both women and men are full,

free, individual citizens.

Sir, –May I be allowed to make a few comments on the courteous answer from your Special

Correspondent who devoted his fourth article on the Revolt of Labour to the Women

Strikers of Bermondsey. In answer to his request, I have once more carefully read through

the article, and I still adhere to my contention, although I am prepared to allow that your

correspondent shows much sympathetic understanding of the girls’ case. The feature of

the article to which I specially objected was his implication that the strike was adopted by

those women-labourers in an irresponsible spirit. The words which gave this idea I

quote: ’Women who had never shown the least sign of discontent, and some whose wages

and conditions were far above the average of the district, were drawn in the excitement

and the chance of a holiday. Indeed, in some aspects the whole affair was more like a

holiday outing than a strike,’ and the article then went on to describe the procession to

which your correspondent alludes in his answer to-day, in which he notes the Cockney wit

and chaff. But even here I venture to criticize the general tone of his remarks, because the

wit and banter displayed by the girl strikers was no sign of an irresponsible and holiday

gaiety, which showed lack of appreciation of the serious issues involved. To my mind it

was rather the staunch and brave attempt to put a good face on a very serious matter. The

truth of this idea was well borne out by the keen remarks made to us onlookers by these

same strikers when we conversed with them. The feature of the strike was the never-

failing good courage, when all that seemed to be before them was starvation, which they

fully recognized. They displayed the courage of the ‘Suffragette,’ which means facing

danger regardless of consequences, and they displayed also that ‘Suffragette’ saving sense

of humour which has pulled us through many a dark hour. In short, to me the strike of

Bermondsey seemed to be one of the best manifestations of the new spirit among women,

the new sense of dignity and the right to assert individuality, and it seemed to me to be a

truly hopeful sign of the success that must soon be ours. What I also resented was the

implication that this natural and spontaneous rising was simply done in imitation of the

men strikers. It was the assertion of women workers of their right as human beings of

their place in the army of the workers of the world. Your correspondent in one of his

sentences gave an inkling that there was more in the revolt of the women than a mere

strike when he wrote ‘a new force has animated the most depressed and least skilled of all

industrial workers to a sudden passion for their rights.’ That force is the feeling fast

dawning among women that they have a right to demand full citizenship. Hence the

statement of your correspondent that ‘many of the girls thoroughly enjoyed the strike’

gains in force and meaning. What the girls enjoyed and what the Suffragettes have enjoyed

in undergoing their most horrible experiences has been that joy in at last asserting their

individuality as free-born Britons.

One further lesson of the women’s strike that might be given is the fact that the

women knew how to strike when the iron was hot, and that is one of the essentials of

politics.—Yours, &c.,

Emily Wilding Davison

31,Coram-street, Sept. 18 (1911)

The Anti-Suffrage Campaign

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 18, 1911, To the Editor of The Standard. “The Anti-Suffrage Campaign”

Although Davison welcomes renewed interest in the question of woman suffrage in this

letter, her comment is both arch and disingenuous, given the successful media blitz the

suffrage movement had mounted since the formation of the WSPU in 1903, and the night in

1905 when Christabel Pankhurst stood up in a meeting in to ask if the Liberal government

was prepared to bring forward a bill for woman suffrage. Opposition to woman suffrage

came from many directions, including women like Miss Gladys Pott (1867-1961) who was a

vocal anti-suffragist and able organizer connected with the National League for Opposing

Woman Suffrage. In 1913 she became secretary of combined male and female anti-suffrage

organizations. She delighted in disrupting WSPU meetings with “anti” questions, and she

was frequently invited to debate suffragists. Like Emily Davison, she wrote prolifically,

particularly letters to the editor of The Times in which she refuted

suffragist claims of the benefits that would accrue to women once they had gained the

vote. Although an opponent, she was a kindred spirit to Davison in her commitment

to the printed word as a means of influence.

Sir, –There is a long account in your paper of a campaign against woman suffrage which

is being waged along the East Coast, to which you give great prominence. The National

League for Opposing Woman Suffrage is evidently quite awake to the fact that the

enfranchisement of women has every chance of taking place next year, and that if they are

to prevent it they must make super-human effort.

In despair the anti-suffragists are clinging to the straw that woman suffrage has

never been before the electorate. It has been before the electorate for the last 50 years, but

it has never been a live issue till six years ago. The jaunty assumption of Miss Gladys Pott

that ‘no member of Parliament has yet won his seat on the question of votes for women,

either one way or another,’ is somewhat ambiguously worded, but Miss Pott had better

turn up the Government organs on Mr. Masterman’s recent election by a much reduced

vote to see that woman suffrage figures very largely as a force in election contests to-day.

The National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage is doing us a great service in

removing the last shreds of apathy upon the question in the country,

I am Sir, your obedient servant,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, W.C.

To the Editor of The Morning Post

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 16, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post

In the summer of 1911 women workers in the Bermondsey district of south London, an area

of factories then largely devoted to food processing—-jams, pickles, biscuits–spontaneously

walked out in protest of their low wages and poor working conditions. It is thought that the

London Dock Workers Strike of that same summer, a strike that was partially successful in

gaining increased wages and improved working conditions, may have inspired the women’s

action. Various labor and women’s organizations, including the National Federation of

Women Workers, moved to support the striking women who were able to gain increased

wages at a number of the factories. Members of the suffrage movement were naturally

interested in women’s economic status and in the trades union movement, and while

Emmeline Pankhurst did not follow her daughter’s path, Sylvia Pankhurst’s commitment

to labor, to trades unions and to women’s economic rights forged a link between labor and

the suffrage movement. Emily Davison was clearly among those who saw the connection

between the women’s movement and the right to bargain for decent wages and living

conditions. Most of all, she valued the concept of union that underlay the labor movement.

Her defense of the strikers is a clear and cogent contemporary description of how enthusiasm

for the trades union movement grew in London between 1910 and 1914.

Sir, — It is with interest that many of us read the fourth of the articles by your Special

Correspondent on the Revolt of Labour which deals with the women’s strikes. But as a

woman who went down among the women-strikers to ascertain the real facts of the case

for herself, I feel that I must take exception to some of the statements made by the writer of

the article.

First and foremost, it is a downright misapprehension of the facts to declare that

these girls came out on strike in an irresponsible, frivolous way with the idea of taking a

sort of Roman holiday. The first feature which struck me and another woman-observer

was the deadly earnestness of the girls in their action; and no wonder when we came to

hear their stories. If ever a strike was justified it was so in the case of these girls: tea and

cocoa packers, tinmakers, makers of jam, confectionery, and biscuits, their labour was

undoubtedly being exploited, if ever labour was exploited. Decent, honest-looking enough

girls they seemed, who had been roused into thought by the sight of the great industrial

upheaval which was taking place around them. They saw responsible, serious men laying

down tools and taking part in one of the greatest manifestations of labour ever made in the

country. The natural outcome was the thought: ‘We, too, are labourers; why should we,

too, not stand out for the right to live?’ These girls, most of them, earned hard-earned

wages averaging from 5s. to 10s. [a week] in a working day often lasting from six in the

morning till eight at night. They were also victims of the miserable ‘piece work’ system.

When they saw men striking for 35s. and more a week for a far shorter day what wonder

that they realized that something would have to be done for them.

Secondly, I object to the statement that ‘women who had never shown the least sign

of discontent and some whose wages and conditions were far above the average of the

district were drawn in the excitement and the chance of a holiday.’ This is an entirely

misleading statement. The spirit which had manifested itself among the women was that

of ‘union’ in the best sense of the word. The most luckily-placed women felt the common

bond of a common interest. Each felt morally responsible for the sweating conditions, if

they were allowed to continue. In short. Amongst those poor women of Bermondsey was

manifested the true spirit which should animate Trade Unionism to-day. It was the insight

into the real meaning of ‘res publica,’ the public welfare. Miss Mary MacArthur and Dr.

Marion Phillips supplied the finishing touch of good leadership.

One part of the article gets, however, to the root of the matter when it is indicated

that what enabled the women to win was public opinion. It was that fact and their own co-

operative powers which made them win. But wherever we went we found these women-

workers alive to the necessity of the vote to working women as a means of protection.

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, Sept. 15 [1911]

The Suffragette

Posted on by Posted in Letters

September 16, 1911, to the Editor of The Queen, “The Suffragette”

During 1911 Davison frequently reviewed books and plays for Votes for Women. She writes

this “critique of a critique” as somewhat of an insider, both in respect to the fairness a review

should demonstrate, and in respect to her understanding of the history of the Pankhursts and

the WSPU. Her primary objection is that the reviewer faults the book for being what it is, a

history of the Suffragette movement, making it tantamount to a history of the WSPU. She

uses her critique to build a theme that begins by invoking the Anglican Church’s definition of a

sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and building that

invocation into a metaphor—the WSPU public meetings and demonstrations are important

in themselves, but not only as singular events. Rather they are the outward and visible signs

of “the mighty spirit of the movement.” Contemporary history, like history of the past (see

Lord Acton Aug.6, “The Spirit Behind History”), is not a list of events, but a sense of the inspiration

that gives rise to and emanates from events.

With reference to our recent review of this book, we have received the following

letter:

“Will you allow me to offer a few remarks on your critique on Miss Sylvia

Pankhurst’s recently published book, The Suffragette?

“First of all you say that ‘Miss Sylvia Pankhurst takes little account of any work

accomplished by persons before the society known as the W.S.P.U. came into being.’ But

surely this statement is beside the mark. The very title of the book itself precludes

anything beside the short but grateful mention of the brave pioneers. The

term ‘Suffragette’ did not enter our language until the militant tactics had been

inaugurated, and was a term which the older society very much disliked, and repudiated as

applying to themselves. Nowadays, of course, it has changed its value, and has improved in

interpretation, even as has the militant movement. Still, its reference is clear.

“Then, again, Miss Sylvia Pankhurst did not need to go at any length into the earlier

history of the English movement, seeing that there are already excellent histories of this.

Thus, for example, Miss Helen Blackburn in her Record of Women’s Suffrage, goes at detail

into the previous history of the movement. My criticism also explains the exclusively

W.S.P.U. tone given to the work, seeing that it was for a time the exclusively Suffragette

society.

“Your remark as to public meetings and demonstrations demands also some

comment. The wonderful success of these, which you so generously praise, is but

the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace achieved by militancy. It

is the cause rather than the result of the W.S.P.U. enthusiasm and activities which it has

been the aim of the authoress to bring before the public. She wishes to make people

understand the marvelous leverage which has produced all these results. As the book

does not aim at being a mere dry as dust report of events which resemble each other

closely, it would not be wise to chronicle every single demonstration and meeting. Who,

for example, would read what would be like a newspaper report of one great meeting after

another held in the Albert Hall, or demonstrations in Hyde Park, when they could peruse

Miss Pankhurst’s eloquent pages describing the hunger strike period? The former are but

ephemeral triumphs which achieved their meed of reward in attracting the public eye and

ear, but the latter get at the heart and brain of the public and make history. Moreover, the

demonstrations and the meetings, the successful newspaper and the vast funds, are all but

the manifestations of the mighty spirit of the movement, which it is the aim of the book to

reveal.

“The kindly remarks which are made here and there in appreciation of the book give

me the hope that you will, in fairness, publish this critique of a critique.

Emily Wilding Davison