October 15, 1911, To The Editor of The Sunday Chronicle, “Property v. Human Life”
This letter, written at virtually the same time as the one above, shows how Davison, like
other suffragists, accepted that men and women’s perspectives on life were fundamentally
different. A state which does not recognize and cherish both perspectives puts itself at risk.
Sir, — The letter which you published in your last Sunday’s issue by ‘Alice Bain’ shows
a humane comprehension, which is apparently lacking in ‘Hubert’ and illustrates well a
fact which suffragists are always preaching, namely, that even if the Conciliation Bill will
enfranchise mainly widows and spinsters, whilst clearly asserting that marriage, qua
marriage, is not to act as a bar to the franchise if the given conditions are fulfilled, yet, even
so, the interests of women would be better safe-guarded by them than by men, however
well intentioned.
The real gist of the matter is that men think more highly of property than of person.
Our law courts afford an endless vista of this truism. Now, woman’s tendency is to think
more of human life, as is only natural, for she is the gates of life. That is where woman’s
influence in the State is absolutely indispensable, and that is the fact which Miss Bain’s
letter brings clearly to the thinking mind. Votes for Women is the salvation of the nation.
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram-street, London, W.C.