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