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.