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]