Author Archives: Emily Davison

Alice in Ganderland

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 30, 1911 To the Editor of The Daily Chronicle , “Alice in Ganderland”

Laurence Housman, a member of a distinguished literary family which included his brother

A.E. Housman and his sister Clemence Housman, was a committed suffragist whose extensive

body of work frequently addressed issues of women and gender; he wrote “Alice in Ganderland,”

a suffragette play in 1911. It was published in the same year by the Women’s Press.

The criticism in your paper to-day of ‘Alice in Ganderland’ gives the idea that the wit

of it was poor. The interesting fact about most people who read or see political satires is

that the parties which are satirized generally make just such a criticism; the plain human

comment upon which is that most people are so devoid of genuine humour that they

cannot manage to join in the laugh when it is turned against themselves. Now, as all

political parties are subjected to a very hailstone [sic] of satire in this genuinely witty little

play, the certainties are that all parties will declare that it is devoid of true humour, thereby

clearly proving that the shafts have gone too unerringly home. Moreover, as the woman

suffragist has undoubtedly the best of it, the play cannot be expected to please the anti-

suffragist.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, W.C., Oct. 28

Mr. Lloyd George and His Interruptors

Posted on by Posted in Letters

35. October 25, 1911, To the Editor of the Leeds Mercury, “Mr. Lloyd George and His

Interruptors”

During the fall of 1911 Emily Davison seems to have been concerned to set the record straight

about the behavior and tactics of pro-suffrage groups. It may be that this focus was part of

the “truce” Emmeline Pankhurst had proclaimed during the time when there was hope that a

woman suffrage bill would be passed.

The fall of 1911 was a tense period for those who supported woman suffrage, a time

of hopeful expectation. The Woman’s Enfranchisement Bill of 1911 (there had been such bills

in 1910 and would be one in 1912) was introduced in February, received a Second Reading

(that is was voted on after general debate), passed by 255 to 88 votes in the Commons, and

then stalled. On November 7, 1911 the Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith withdrew his

support from the bill and announced the government would propose a universal male suffrage

bill which would could be amended to include some degree of woman suffrage in the next

Parliament. This letter, explaining a failure of communication, sought to deflect criticism of

pro-suffrage groups at a crucial moment:

Sir, –In a paragraph dealing with the deputation of the Men’s Political Union for Women’s

Enfranchisement by [to?] Mr. Lloyd George, after his speech on the Conciliation Bill at

Whitefield’s Tabernacle, on October 14th, you say that ‘the agreement was that if those who

supported the conciliation Bill refrained from interrupting the speech by Mr. Lloyd George,

he would receive a deputation.’ The paragraph goes on to say , that the compact was not

strictly kept on the Suffragists’ side, in spite of which Mr. Lloyd George received them.

Will you allow me to put the real facts of the case? The M.P.C. [reference not clear]

had previously asked Mr. Lloyd George to receive a deputation. Mr. Lloyd George refused,

but an hour before the meeting began, sent a message that he would receive a deputation

after his meeting. Mr. Duval accepted this, but made a condition that he should be allowed

to explain the arrangement from the platform before the speech began, as several of the

M.P.C. were already in the Hall resolved to heckle. This was settled. When Mr. Duval

arrived, however, he was refused admittance by the police. He could not, therefore, ask the

men there not to interrupt, and some of them did so. Mr. Lloyd George, of course, received

the Deputation as the interruptions were due to defective arrangements.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, London, W.C.

October 23rd, 1911

October 25, 1911, To the Editor of The Throne and Country

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 25, 1911, To the Editor of The Throne and Country

The sentiments Davison expresses in this letter are familiar ones—the nexus among women’s

rights, social evolution, sexual equality and human happiness. She touches briefly on an

ancient Aristotelian notion—that men and women are inherently one sex, differentiated

by differently expressed genitalia. In Le Livre des trois vertus Christine de Pizan [Italian-

French writer c. 1405] used this theory to argue that women could function as men, because

they have the heart and soul of men. Davison’s interpretation is less radical, but essentially

similar: both maleness and femaleness exist on a spectrum inherent in all humanity. This

letter uses the present and future tenses to underscore the progress happening “now” and the

promise this progress holds for an even better, more equal, and free, future.

Sir, –In the article in your issue of October 4th, headed ‘The Feminine Outlook,’ which

professes to expose the Suffragette soul, the writer, Ray Holland, loses ground the whole

way through ignoring a most essential fact of human nature. He bases his theory on the

erroneous supposition that the Woman Suffrage Crusade is anti-man. This false premise

accounts for such an absurd mis-statement as that ‘Miss Suffragette says from the platform

that she can do entirely without man.’

As a Suffragette myself, I absolutely and categorically deny this assertion. I have

never myself, nor have I ever heard any other Suffragette, utter any such absurdity. What

we are always insisting upon our platforms, in season and out of season, is the fact that this

crusade of ours is not Feminist, is not anti-man, but that it is for the good of the whole

human race, and that it is necessary for evolution. This fact we put before our audiences in

every possible way, that it is in the man’s interest, as well as our own, that we should be

enfranchised, able to develop to our full potentialities, able to become the fine mothers of

fine children. Hence we ask for and receive the co-operation of men in our quest.

The elemental fact that Mr. Ray Holland is overlooking is that in every man there is

something of the woman, in every woman there is something of the man, and happily so, as

otherwise there could be no mutual understanding. The point has lately been brought

forward considerably by German psychologists and philosophers.

But even your author acknowledges that man does want intellect in his chosen

woman. Having tasted the sweets of companionship with a really thinking woman, he

really no longer cares for the doll or the drudge. Why? Because a higher part of his nature

is vibrating to the new companion. A more unselfish tinge is coming into his field of

thought. He is no longer conscientiously content to merely keep in subjection and protect

one woman. He has a feeling of compassion for the unprotected women, who have no

power to rise. He also begins to realize how much more glorious, how much more

interesting a creature this new companion may be. And I can promise him as a Suffragette

that his surmises will be fully justified.

We who have passionately worked in this movement are amazed to behold the

results already evident in our own ranks. We never realized for one moment what

immense possibilities there were in women, once they had a chance to develop them. The

marvellous talents displayed by our women in organization, in originality, in every special

department of life, have astounded us. We feel that all that had been lacking was self-

confidence, and that is coming with success. What a mine of power has been neglected by

the nation. It is now being opened up. The nation is only now beginning to realize the

great future which lies before it with freedom for all, women as well as men. Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, W.C.

October 12, 1911

Militant Demonstrations

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 24, 1911, To the Editor of The Evening Standard, “Militant Demonstrations”

The Woman Suffrage movement played out in the midst of an on-going series of political

protests, some concerned with labor rights, others with political autonomy that characterized

early twentieth century British history. In this letter Davison draws a line between suffrage

methods of protest and the more extreme actions of the Tonypandy or Rhondda rioters, coal

miners in South Wales who, in the midst of an industrial dispute with mine owners, smashed

the home windows of mine officials’ houses and the windows of shops on 8 November, 1910.

The Irish Land League was formed in the later nineteenth century to help abolish absentee

landlordism in Ireland and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked; violence

occurred on the occasion of tenant evictions for non-payment of rents. The Unionists she

refers to are the early twentieth-century Ulster Unionist party who vehemently opposed Irish

Home Rule, that is a repeal of the Act of Union of 1800 that united Ireland to Great Britain.

Sir,– In your leader of October 18, headed ‘Methods of Anarchy,’ you assert that ‘the great

Unionist Party cannot afford to adopt the ethics of the Suffragettes, the Irish Land League,

and the Tonypandy rioters.’ In bringing all these three together will you allow me to point

out that the two last have freely indulged in bloodshed and stone-throwing on a very

considerable scale, such as has certainly not been seen in the case of the Suffragettes?

Further, whether the Unionists could afford it or not, they have certainly indulged in some

decidedly militant demonstrations, such as the very interesting recent scenes in the House

of Commons. Consideration of these makes Suffragists inclined to give the Unionist Party

the wise advice that it is not politic for those who live in glasshouses to throw missiles.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, CORAM-STREET, W.C.

Women’s Wages

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 23, 1911, to the Editor of The Standard, “Women’s Wages”

Sir,– My letter, which was dated and sent off October 11, refers to Miss Pott’s

communication, headed a “Challenge to Mrs. Despard,” in your issue of October 10, in

which she asserted, “The Report (official) on the Textile Trades, published in 1906, affirms

positively that between 1886 and 1906 the average wages of women in those trades rose

22 per cent., as against 20 per cent. For men. The wages of female domestic servants have

increased over 20 per cent. Since 1860.” I explained the rise.

Emily Wilding Davison

31, Coram-street, W.C.

Were Women ‘Free’

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 22, 1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Chronicle, “Were Women ‘Free’”

In this brief letter Davison engages the subject of “the new woman,” reluctant to enter

traditional marriage. The most sensational exposition of the reasons for such reluctance

appeared in the 1895 Grant Allen novel The Woman Who Did, whose heroine chooses a loving

partnership with rather than marriage to her husband. The second half of the novel lays

out in excruciating detail all the ways society—and finally her only child—work not only to

defeat, but to utterly crush her for her decision to love freely outside the bonds of marriage.

Davison does not advocate—or even address–this particular aspect of the topic, but she does

say quite plainly that in contemplating marriage women contemplate exchanging freedom for

slavery imposed not by the husband but by the laws of the state.

Sir,–There is undoubtedly a marked tendency among the intelligent middle-class women

not to enter matrimony readily. But “Hubert” has not got hold of the real reason.

These women, having had their eyes opened by independent work and education,

see very clearly the disadvantages of the marriage state as it is at present. It is not that

they care less for marriages, or that they do not think it is the natural state for a man or a

woman. But they look around and see the unsatisfactory status of the wife, and hesitate to

exchange freedom for possible slavery.

The only way to cope with this situation is to put right the marriage conditions, and

then the matter will readjust itself. It is clear that the way to do this is to bring the

woman’s point of view directly into the State. Thus I contend that if women were

emancipated, marriage would increase.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

London, W.C.

Mothers and Sanatoria

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 18, 1911, To the Editor of The Westminster Gazette

“Mothers and Sanatoria”

Sir, –The long and interesting letter by Mr. C.V. Pearson on the value of sanatoriums in the

National Insurance Bill as a health-producing asset to the nation emboldens me to point out

a defect in the Bill which it is to be hoped will be remedied while there is yet time. Through

the sanatoria the Bill wisely aims at rooting out that greatest of national scourges,

consumption. But what is the good of opening these splendid institutions to the working-

man unless they are to be freely opened to his wife? For after all the infection is spread far

more seriously and dangerously by the mother than the father. It is the position of the non-

wage-earning mother for which I especially wish to plead, for it is she who is in the closest

touch with the children, and who, of course, if consumptive, infects them. In the interests of

the rising generation the non-wage-earning mother must be brought into this National

Insurance scheme equally with the earning father. Of what avail to cure the father, when

the mother is left as a free dispenser of bacilli? Mr. Lloyd George indicated in his

Whitefield’s speech that if the mother has been a wage-earner before marriage, after

marriage, even is she no longer earns, she may, on payment of a small sum, get free medical

help. May I be allowed to suggest that it should be rendered obligatory that this small sum

should in the case of all non-wage-earning wives be paid by the husband? How are the

women to pay it, seeing that as things are they have no money of their won, not even the

right to any savings that they may be able to make out of the housekeeping. Such an

amendment would do far more for the national health than any other part of the Bill.—

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Great Coram-street

Wages of Women

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 18, 1911, To the Editor of The Standard, “Wages of Women”

In these two letters Davison again engages with Gladys Pott to refute rosy assertions about

the rise in women’s wages, particularly in the textile factories and in domestic service, as a

result of “natural” economic forces entirely separate from labour movements or suffrage.

Sir, Miss Gladys Pott utters a bold challenge to Mrs. Despard, which with your permission

I should like to take up. With unusual wiliness for an “Anti,” Miss Pott has culled a few

exceptional statistics from a great mass which goes far to prove Mrs. Despard’s contention.

Miss Pott takes two special trades, that of the textile women workers, and that of domestic

service, in both of which women’s wages have risen, and cleverly insinuates from that fact

that in all women’s trades wages have risen. But Miss Pott of course knows, as do we all,

that to get an average you take the very lowest as well as the very highest. There are very

clear reasons why wages in these two trades have advanced. The textile women workers

are wonderfully organized into trade unions together with the men, and by this means have

direct representation in Parliament. Hence their wages and conditions are better than in

any other trade.

As to the wages in domestic service, there is a very simple explanation there. It is

the law of supply and demand. Since the year 1860, mentioned by Miss Pott, profession

after profession, trade after trade, has been opened out to women, with the result that they

no longer overcrowd the only occupation, which, together with governessing, was once

open to women.

Emily Wilding Davison

31, Great Coram-street

October 17, 1911, To the Editor of “The Daily Graphic”

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October 17, 1911, To the Editor of The Daily Graphic

The next two letters, written two days later, address the short-comings, from a woman’s

point of view of the contentious Insurance Act of 1911, a subject often addressed that year

in the pages of Votes for Women. The Act provided a system of medical and unemployment

insurance hitherto unimaginable in England. Workers throughout the country between the

ages of sixteen and seventy were compelled to join; they contributed four pence a week, and

their employers three pence, while the nation contributed two. These contributions funded

a system of free health care and free medicine, as well as unemployment insurance for men

of seven shillings a week for a period of fifteen weeks in any calendar year. This benefit was

distributed at Labour Exchanges which also provided information about where employment

might be found in the area. But the bill at the time these letters were written was unfair to

women who did not work outside the home and would not be automatically covered. Those

women who had worked before marriage could participate on payment into the scheme.

Even so, as the second letter indicates, women’s benefits were substantially less than men’s.

The purpose of the Insurance Act was to create what is today called a social safety-net for

families. Davison saw, though, that the economics of the Act assumed that the male of the

family was the wage-earner, that his illness or unemployment would cause hardship. What

was not recognized was the contribution of women in respect to wages, and in respect to

domestic work. Families could be equally devastated by the illness of father or mother.

Davison’s argument in the second letter based on her knowledge of the infectious nature of

the tuberculosis bacillium seems irrefutable.

Sir, –In the account of Mr. Lloyd George’s speech he defended his Insurance Bill from the

charge of being unfair to women by saying that if the women received less than the men it

was because they paid less, and that was because they earned less money. He also stated

that the women were fairly treated because every penny that they paid in was reserved

for their own benefit, and none of it went to the men. There are two obvious criticisms on

these assertions: to the first the Bill is promoting that unjust anomaly due to the old state

of affairs by which equal pay is not given for equal work, and is therefore blameworthy.

The second point is that it is absurd to claim magnanimity in keeping for the

women what belongs to the women. That is a self-evident fact. Anything else would be

robbery. But what is unjust is that, seeing that the economic position of women in the Bill

is crippled because they are supposed to be supported by their husbands (vide the position

of the non-wage-earning married woman), as a matter of fact the husband wage-earner

ought to be forced to pay his wife’s insurance, not the woman, who has no money, not even

her savings. But that would raise an outcry among the husbands, who have votes, and

therefore is not done, and so injustice is propagated.

Lastly, to the W.S.P.U. deputation Mr. Lloyd George said that he wished that women

had votes, as then his Bill would be sure to go through. It might go through, but it would be

in a very different form to that which it now has, for the women would have been then

properly considered in the Bill, put in as an integral part, and not as an afterthought, as

now. –Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, London, W.C.,

October 16th, 1911

October, 17, 1911, To the Editor of The World

Posted on by Posted in Letters

October, 17, 1911, To the Editor of The World

This letter constitutes the third in a cluster focused on the role of women’s perspectives in

bettering the nation. In it Davison draws on her faith in social evolution, her conviction that

educated, free women better themselves as well as their children. It reiterates her acceptance

of essential British conservatism in matters of social change, and her faith that substantial

change is about to come. Most interestingly, it articulates the rationale for her campaign of

letter writing to newspapers—the power of the press to shape public opinion and stimulate

John Bull, the personification of the British people, to move.

Madam, The way the Press nowadays is opening its portals to the woman’s point of view is

a source of the greatest interest to those who believe in the gradual evolution of the race.

Now, the most powerful lever for evolution is undoubtedly public opinion, and

public opinion to a great extent is moulded by the Press. For over forty years the cause of

woman’s enfranchisement has been before the nation, ever since John Stuart Mill brought it

to public notice in 1866; but it had not public opinion behind it. As a matter of fact, public

opinion and the Press were deadly opposed to the whole movement. This fact was in strict

consonance with the British character. We are, as a nation, extremely cautious and slow to

change. When such a tremendous change as that of the status of woman was involved, it is

not to be wondered at that time and the woman were needed to make it acceptable. But

the matter was lagging too much a decade ago. In order to make John Bull move it has been

proved in the past that he must be given an electric shock. He got it in the uprising of his

womenfolk. That women should stand up and demand justice was, to the slow-going old

gentleman, absolutely unthinkable. He opened his eyes; he wondered if he were standing

on his head or his heels. But the shock had succeeded in its object; it had roused him. Now

the result of the shock was this: John Bull was first pained and surprised; he then was led

to examine the matter; and the last stage is conversion. He is hovering between the last

two stages now, but he has at any rate reached the stage of interest. That is well shown in

the Press.

At the dinner of journalists given last year it was said that any just cause that was

taken up by the Press was certain of success. What we Suffragists have now to do to the

Press is to prove the justice of our cause, and that we can easily do with a ‘fair field and no

favour.’

Now the men of the nation have been given this fair field, but the women have not.

The men cannot, however, take full advantage of their chances because they are

handicapped by having undeveloped mothers. It is a well-known domestic truth that the

boy usually takes after his mother, and the girl after the father. That is why, with all their

opportunities, men are still held back from perfect development. But what of women?

Their condition is deplorable. With the dawn of liberty ahead of them they are struggling

upwards, but it is a bitter fight. One by one they are breaking the fetters and gradually

gaining power. The day is not far distant when they will stand free, side by side by men,

untrammeled, erect, with the proud bearing of equals; diverse, yet equal. Then indeed it

will be possible to set the true standard of manliness and of womanliness. Then, and not

till then, for each will have risen to full stature. Then and not till then will a perfectly

developed race be shown to the world.

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

(B.A. Lond. and Oxford Final Honour School)